Sitting of 21 May 1931

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
York Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.
Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
Ebenezer Chapel, Birmingham [Lords].
Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
West Hartlepool Corporation Bill (King's Consent signified),
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Aylesbury Joint Hospital District and Stretford and District Gas Board) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Birkenhead and Chepping Wycombe) Bill,
Wallasey Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Frimley and Farnborough Water and Great Berkhampstead Water) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Herne Bay Water and Southend Water) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Great Marlow Water and Yeadon Water) Bill (by Order),
Read a Second time, and committed.

DARLINGTON CORPORATION TROLLEY VEHICLES (ADDITIONAL ROUTES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the Darlington Corporation (Transport, etc.), Act, 1925, relating to the Darlington Corporation Trolley Vehicles," presented by Mr. Parkinson; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 162.]
IPSWICH CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the Ipswich Corporation Act, 1925, relating to the Ipswich Corporation Trolley Vehicles," presented by Mr. Parkinson; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 163.]
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES (CHEPPING WYCOMBE CORPORATION) BILL,
"to confirm a Scheme made by the Minister of Health under the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, relating to the Chepping Wycombe Corporation," presented by Mr. Greenwood; and ordered (under Section 1 (9) of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 164.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTION.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    WOMEN (BIRMINGHAM AND WALSALL).
    Mr. McSHANEasked the Minister of Labour (1) the number of

    2169
    vacancies for women notified by the Walsall exchange to the Birmingham exchanges during April, 1931;
    (2) the number of vacancies for women notified by the Birmingham exchanges to Walsall exchange during April, 1931?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): No vacancies for women were circulated to the Birmingham exchanges on behalf of Walsall during April; 185 vacancies for women in the Birmingham area which could not immediately be filled locally were circulated to neighbouring exchanges including Walsall.
    Mr. McSHANE: Will the right hon. Lady, in view of the fact that there are 20,000 unemployed women in Birmingham and over 2,000 in Walsall, give instructions to these exchanges that in the case of domestic service, where injustice or hardship frequently arises, they shall be confined to Birmingham?
    Miss BONDFIELD: In this particular instance there were no vacancies from Walsall, and I think the hon. Member will be doing an injustice to the women of Walsall if he takes a line which will forbid the circulation of vacancies in Walsall.
    Mr. McSHANE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have frequently had coming to me large numbers of women who are anxious for domestic service in Walsall, but cannot get it, whereas Birmingham women are sent there and get it?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I will look into that point.
    Mr. HANNON: Has the Minister of Labour received any complaints of any sort or description against the administration of the Birmingham Employment Exchanges?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I do not think so.

    EXCHANGE ACCOMMODATION, BAENSLEY.
    Mr. POTTSasked the Minister of Labour whether any definite progress has been made respecting the sheltering of unemployed persons outside the Barnsley Employment Exchange awaiting the rotation order of payment, especially when raining and during winter months?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The position as regards the Barnsley exchange is the same as in December last, when I explained to my hon. Friend that there is no need for applicants to wait outside the exchange premises provided that they do not attend in advance of their scheduled times.
    Mr. POTTS: Is the right hon. Lady aware that I have been there on two occasions when it has been raining and have seen large numbers there; that I have made inquiries into the matter locally and find that it is impossible to get people in what is called rotation order without a large number of men and women getting wet?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The unfortunate thing is that if applicants would only come at the time they are scheduled there would not be that congestion.

    WORK SCHEMES.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour the policy of the Government with regard to the question of making grants for the erection of libraries in connection with their unemployment schemes?
    Miss BONDFIELD: In view of the terms of the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act, 1929, under which grants from Exchequer Funds in aid of schemes of work for the relief of unemployment are made, these grants have at no time been sanctioned for the erection of libraries.
    Mr. MANDER: Is it not possible to reconsider this matter in view of the amount of employment that will be given?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am afraid it is not.
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Lord Privy Seal what progress he has made towards curing unemployment since 16th April; and how many men and women, stated separately, have been found work since that date as a result of his activities?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Lord Privy Seal. The value of the schemes approved by the Government up to date for the relief of unemployment is approximately £177,000,000, which is £4,000,000 more than the figure as at 1st April which

    2171
    the Lord Privy Seal gave to the House on 16th April. Up to date figures of the number of persons employed, directly and indirectly, in connection with these schemes are not yet available but on the basis of the latest returns, as at the end of March, they are estimated to be about 240,000 or some 13,500 more than a month earlier. It is not possible to give separate figures for men and women.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that the figures she has quoted mean that only one person was found a job for every six who have lost jobs since the present Government came into office, and that the figures are particularly disappointing to Members of the Liberal party?

    LIVERPOOL.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Minister of Labour if she can state the reason for the delay in the sanctioning of schemes for grant by the Unemployment Grants Committee that have been submitted by the Liverpool Corporation since 1st January, 1931, for the relief of unemployment?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am not aware that there has been any delay other than that necessary to secure the requisite technical information and for its adequate consideration. Of the eight schemes submitted since 1st January one has been approved, two have been refused and five are under consideration.
    Mr. HALL-CAINE: Will the right hon. Lady urge upon the Unemployment Grants Committee either to reject or approve the five schemes which now remain as there is a great deal of unemployment in this area?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I should like to tell the hon. Member that there is no delay on the part of the Unemployment Grants Committee.

    BENEFIT (PAYMENT, BRISTOL).
    Mr. ALPASSasked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware that, at the Grove (Bristol) Employment Exchange, there is a delay of some hours after signing on in the payment of unemployment benefit; and whether she will consider making arrangements by which payment can be made before 12 o'clock noon?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am looking into this matter and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

  GRANITE KERB.
  Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour when she expects to have the first report from the committee now considering the supply of and demand for granite kerb?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I understand that considerable progress has been made by the informal joint committee of producers and users which is considering this matter, but I am not in a position to forecast the date of its report.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether the right hon. Lady will be able to do something in this matter?
  Miss BONDFIELD: It is not for me to do something. I have taken such steps as are open to me to bring the two parties together.

  HOURS OF INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT BILL.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour whether complete accord has been reached with organised labour in this country with reference to the provisions of the Hours of Industrial Employment Bill?
  Miss BONDFIELD: Yes, Sir, subject to the consideration of certain matters of detail which are committee points.
  Mr. MANDER: Can the Minister of Labour say why after 11 years there is still this delay in the ratification of the Washington Convention?
  Miss BONDFIELD: The immediate difficulty is the congestion of public business.

  POLICE.

    METROPOLITAN FORCE.
    Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the increase of the Metropolitan Police Force during the previous 12 months, any further increase of this force is at present under consideration?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): I presume that my hon. Friend refers to the increase of 250 men which was authorised in 1929 and completed in 1930. The question of any further augmentation is still under consideration.
    Mr. EDE: May I ask whether the night hon. Gentleman has considered the redistribution of this enlarged force so as to give greater protection to those areas within the Metropolitan Police district which are outside the administrative county of London?
    Mr. CLYNES: The hon. Member may have gathered from previous answers that the question of re-distribution is being considered and that we are doing our best in the matter.
    Mr. DAY: Does this augmentation include women police?
    Mr. CLYNES: No.

    WOMEN POLICE (LONDON).
    Mr. DOUGLAS HACKINGasked the Home Secretary the present establishment and strength of the women police in the Metropolitan area; and how many are attached to the Criminal Investigation Department?
    Mr. CLYNES: The present establishment and strength is one staff officer, two inspectors, five sergeants and 43 constables; of these one inspector and one constable are attached to the Criminal Investigation Department.
    Mr. HACKING: Is it the intention to increase the number to be attached to the Criminal Investigation Department?
    Mr. CLYNES: There is no present intention as far as I know, but I will consider that point.
    Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much it will cost?
    Mr. CLYNES: No, not without notice.

    MOTOR PATROL SERVICE.
    Mr. HACKINGasked the Home Secretary whether he contemplates any reorganisation of the motor patrol service in the Metropolitan area?
    Mr. CLYNES: No reorganisation is in contemplation.
    Mr. HACKING: In view of the large number of accidents which take place in the patrol service, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that these drivers have sufficient experience before they are taken on?
    Mr. CLYNES: Yes, there is a very severe test before they are recruited or employed. As I have informed the House in previous answers, most of these accidents are very trivial, and we have not yet had enough experience to consider any question of reorganisation.
    Mr. MARLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain of these members passed the test after only two weeks in a driving school?
    Mr. CLYNES: I am not aware of that fact. I shall be glad to have any information on that point.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not that more than most of the motorists on the road have?
    Sir W. BRASS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving instructions to these police, especially at corners, to watch for dangerous passing?
    Mr. CLYNES: That has not previously been considered. It is, I think, a point worth looking into.

    EX-INSPECTOR SYME.
    Mr. ERNEST WINTERTONasked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to make any statement on the case of ex-Inspector Syme?
    Mr. CLYNES: It has been decided to grant a pension to ex-Inspector John Syme in respect of his 15 years' service in the Metropolitan Police Force. The pension will be calculated on Mr. Syme's salary in the rank of Inspector which he held in 1909, and will amount, with the appropriate increases payable since 1920 under the Pensions Increase Acts, to approximately £72 per annum. He will also receive arrears of pension since 1909 amounting to about £1,200. The decision to grant this pension has been arrived at after a careful re-examination of the history of Mr. Syme's case, the origin of which can be traced back to the fact that when he was at Gerald Road Police Station in 1909 his superior officer reported in writing to higher police authorities that Mr. Syme had on a particular occasion shown undue

    2175
    familiarity with his subordinates. Following upon this report, Inspector Syme was transferred from one police station to another station in the same Division, but apart altogether from the question of the transfer, it is obvious that such a report—a report which was subsequently found to be unwarranted—might have affected his future career as a police officer. The subsequent trouble, to which detailed reference need not be made here, undoubtedly arose out of this report and out of the sense of wrong which resulted from the fact that Inspector Syme knew that such a report had been made and that the same was unjustified. There has never been any question as to Mr. Syme's sincerity. It is acknowledged that while in the Police Service he discharged his duties in a conscientious manner, and no stigma of any kind attaches in this settlement to him. It must not be thought that this settlement involves any reflection upon those who in the course of years have been concerned in the handling of the case.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what explanation he can give of the interminable and unwarrantable delay which has been taking place—
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot go into that now.

  FACTORIES BILL.
  Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Home Secretary the present position with regard to the Factories Bill?
  Mr. CLYNES: As was explained in reply to a previous question, the Government have been anxious to proceed with this Bill during the present Session if it seemed practicable, having regard to other commitments, to carry it through all its stages. I am afraid that in view of the legislation to which Parliament is already committed and the present state of business, a postponement of this Bill for the present Session appears now to be inevitable.
  Sir K. WOOD: Is the other legislation to which the Home Secretary referred, the Alternative Vote and the Trade Disputes Bill, and matters of that kind?
  Mr. CLYNES: The other legislation is within the knowledge of hon. Members, especially of the more active Members of the House.
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman remembers the terms in which his party referred to the Trade Disputes Bill—[Interruption.]

  CONVICTION AND SENTENCE, SHOREHAM.
  Mr. McELWEEasked the Home Secretary whether he has yet considered the case of Thomas Edward Francis, who was convicted at the Shoreham Sessions, with a view to a reduction of the sentence?
  Mr. CLYNES: I have considered the case but I have no power to revoke or modify the suspension of a licence.

  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (CENSORSHIP).
  Mr. SCOTTasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the continued dissatisfaction that exists as to the censorship of cinematograph films, especially those which are passed for universal exhibition but are unsuitable for children; whether he is now prepared to supersede the existing board by a Government hoard of censors; or whether he will now appoint a select committee to inquire into the whole question of censorship and the desirability of having a separate board for Scotland?
  Mr. CLYNES: I have not received evidence of any general dissatisfaction with the standards of censorship which are observed by the British Board of Film Censors; and, for the reasons which I gave in reply to a question by the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Glassey) on the 11th December last, I am not, as at present advised, prepared to ask Parliament to consider the establishment of an official Board of Film Censors. Such complaints as I have received are mainly concerned with the general tone of the films, and many of the complainants themselves admit that this is a defect which no system of censorship could remedy. On this aspect of the matter I have recently received a deputation from

  2177
  the Birmingham Cinema Inquiry Committee, who asked me to institute an inquiry to investigate the possibility of improving the general standard of the films. I am at present considering whether such an inquiry could be expected to produce any useful results and I hope to reach a decision on this point in the near future. The relation of the present system of film censorship to Scotland is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  Mr. MARLEY: May I ask the sources from which he gets reports. Are they sources directly connected with the film industry?
  Mr. CLYNES: The sources are letters and resolutions, sometimes personal approaches, and, as indicated, we have conferences and interviews with the trade.
  Mr. SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reports presented to the Church of Scotland Assembly bear testimony to the dissatisfaction which is spoken of in the question?
  Mr. CLYNES: I have not had that specially brought to my notice, but the Scottish aspect is rather a matter for my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that where films are not passed by the censor, the local licensing magistrates have power over the same?
  Mr. CLYNES: Yes, that is so.

  FLAG DAYS.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Home Secretary the number of flag days that have been held in London during the present and past year, respectively; and what action he proposes to take in order to restrict the number to the most deserving charities?
  Mr. CLYNES: In 1930, 318 permits for street collections were issued. Of these 28 were for general collections over the whole or greater portion of the Metropolitan Police District and 290 were for local collections. In 1931, 87 permits have been issued for dates up to and including the 20th May; 17 being for general collections and 70 for local
  2178
  collections. All applications are carefully scrutinised by the Advisory Committee on Street Collections, but there is no power under the Act or Regulations to restrict the issue of permits solely on account of their number, or to discriminate between charities or other bodies which apply, so long as they are honestly conducted.
  Mr. MANDER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the value of these flag-days is enormously depreciated by their continual recurrence two or three times a week?
  Mr. CLYNES: I have no doubt that that is so, but we cannot resist the pressure of these appeals.
  Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider having a Royal Commission on the subject?
  Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the figures which he has given do not include a number of duplicate applications for collections relating to the same body in different areas?
  Mr. CLYNES: I think that is probable, but I could not say without notice.

  TRANSPORT.

    MOTOR SKEED LIMIT (PROSECUTIONS, LONDON).
    Mr. REMERasked the Home Secretary how many prosecutions were made against motorists for exceeding the speed limit between Marble Arch and Hyde Park Corner; and how many prosecutions for similar offences along Constitution Hill?
    Mr. CLYNES: The following are the figures for the 12 months ended 31st March last:

    Between March Arch and Hyde Park Corner (i.e., East Carriage Road, Hyde Park)

    237

    Constitution Hill

    305

    Sir W. BRASS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think, as these figures are so large, that it would be better to have the police in uniform to act as a deterrent instead of hiding them so that that public do not know where they are?
    Mr. CLYNES: I am not an authority on that point, but it is a point worth considering.

    DARTFORD-PURFLEET TUNNEL.
    Mr. MILLSasked the Minister of Transport if he can state the reason why the Dartford tunnel project has not yet been started; and whether the grants of money sanctioned in 1930 are still available?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Parkinson): In accordance with the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to a question by my hon. Friend on the 15th April, tenders for the pilot tunnel were invited on the 24th April, and are to be delivered on the 2nd June, after which my right hon. Friend hopes it will be possible to arrange for the work to be promptly begun. There has been no alteration in the terms of financial assists ance available from the Road Fund.

    HORSE-DRAWN TRAFFIC.
    Mr. MILLSasked the Minister of Transport whether, before issuing any further regulation prohibiting horse-drawn traffic in certain areas of London, he will consult all the trades dependent on this industry with regard to any such restriction on their usage?
    Mr. W. B. TAYLORasked the Minister of Transport whether he has now received the report of the London Traffic Advisory Committee with regard to the representations made by various bodies in connection with the restrictions on horse-drawn vehicles proposed in the draft Oxford Street regulations; and whether he can give an undertaking that modifications, satisfactory to all interested parties, will be made before these regulations are brought into force?
    Mr. PARKINSON: I am informed that the London Traffic Advisory Committee have recently had a meeting with representatives of the National Horse Association and of a number of other organisations concerned with horse-drawn traffic. My right hon. Friend will receive in due course a report from the committee on the representations made by these bodies among other representations and objections which have been received in respect of the proposed London Traffic (Oxford Street) Regulations. It may not be
    2180
    possible to meet the wishes of all interested parties, but every consideration will be given to their representations.
    Sir W. BRASS: Will the hon. Member take into consideration the unfairness of slow-moving traffic holding up the whole of the traffic?
    Mr. PARKINSON: All such considerations are taken into account by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. McSHANE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a general slowing up of traffic would be to the well-being of the general public?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that horses stop traffic altogether in some streets?

    HIGHWAY CODE (SOUND FILM).
    Sir W. BRASSasked the Minister of Transport whether he has any information to give to the House as to the sound film taken of himself demonstrating dangerous practices on the road; what the film cost; and whether any payment was made out of public funds for its production or for showing it at the picture houses?
    Mr. PARKINSON: I assume that the hon. and gallant Member refers to a sound film which was recently made with the object of drawing attention to some of the provisions of the Highway Code. This film was made by British Movietone News, Limited, at the request of the National Safety First Association and was included in their weekly news film. No charge on public funds was involved.
    Sir W. BRASS: Will the hon. Gentleman arrange for this film to be shown to Members of Parliament?
    Mr. PARKINSON: I will suggest that to my right hon. Friend.

  EDUCATION.

    SCHOOL PLAYGROUND, LEYTON (EMPIRE DAY PAGEANT).
    Captain AUSTIN HUDSONasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the use of a school playground at Leyton for the purpose of the children's ceremony of saluting the Union Jack on Empire Day,

    2181
    23rd May, has been refused; and whether any instructions have been given by the Board with relation to such applications?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Lees-Smith): I understand that the Leyton local education authority have refused an application from the local branch of the National Conservative and Unionist Association for the use of a school playground, on 23rd May, for a pageant, which would have included the ceremony of saluting the Union Jack. No instructions have been issued by the Board on this matter, which is entirely within the discretion of the local authority.
    Captain HUDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the same body granted the use of a football pitch for a Socialist demonstration; and why this discrimination on party lines?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I have not had the latter matter brought to my attention, and, reading the regulations of this authority, I doubt whether it would grant the use of any school playground for any purpose other than something connected with the children at the school.
    Captain HUDSON: If I give the right hon. Gentleman particulars will he look into the matter?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is it not a fact that the education authorities observe this day, appropriately, on their own account without the intervention of political parties?
    Mr. BROCKWAY: Arising out of the previous answer, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Leyton Council owns a football ground which is rented to various organisations for the purposes for which they may desire it?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I understand that the question refers to the playground of the school itself.
    Mr. HANNON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in all our Dominions oversea the Union Jack is hoisted on the schools as a matter of course?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: That does not arise out of the question.

    TRAFFIC DANGERS (PRECAUTIONS).
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Education if his Department possess separate statistics of the number of street accidents which have occurred to school children in consequence of the proximity of schools to busy streets and roadways; and if any means are being considered for the greater safety of children in leaving such schools?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Where schools are close to busy streets the local authorities generally endeavour to reduce the risk to children to a minimum, by the provision of warning signals, by the erection of such contrivances as crush barriers, and by arranging where practicable for police to be stationed at appropriate points.
    Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making suggestions with regard to the construction of new schools, that all possible precautions should be taken to prevent children rushing out into congested streets?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: In regard to every new school the plans are so arranged that there shall be certain entrances to the school from the more quiet streets.

    NON-PROVIDED SCHOOLS.
    Mr. TINKERasked the President of the Board of Education if he is in a position to state what progress has been made with the negotiations in respect of the voluntary schools and the proposed Education Bill?
    Mr. BROMLEYasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has made any progress in finding a solution of the voluntary school difficulty with regard to the Education (School Attendance) Bill?
    Mr. GILLasked the President of the Board of Education if he has reopened the discussions with representatives of the non-provided schools regarding provision of financial assistance in connection with the proposed Education Bill?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I am not in a position to make any statement on this matter at present.

    PRIVATE SCHOOLS.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the President of the Board of Education whether he proposes to introduce regulations providing for the closing of those schools which do not reach certain standards of educational and sanitary efficiency?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: My predecessor appointed a departmental committee last December to survey the present position of schools not in receipt of grants from public funds, and to consider what legislative or other changes are desirable for the purpose of securing that children attending such schools receive an adequate education under suitable conditions. I do not propose to take any action in the matter until I have had an opportunity of considering the committee's report.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Can the right ton. Gentleman state what proportion of schools now in operation do not Satisfy the conditions laid down by the Board?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: There are, of course, a great number of private schools which do not obtain grants at all, but I cannot say the exact number.
    Sir W. BRASS: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to get the report of this committee?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I am not able to say at present.
    Mr. LEES: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish the report on the schools referred to when he gets it?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I shall certainly consider the publication of the report of this committee.
    Mr. FOOT: Would the right hon. Gentleman give further consideration to the request that the black-listed schools should be published, so that the public may know what schools there are on the list?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: That does not arise out of the question, which relates to private schools not receiving grants.

    TEACHERS' SALARIES (COMMITTEE).
    Sir GERALD HURSTasked the President of the Board of Education if he
    2184
    has considered the representations made to him as the alleged unfairness in the constitution of the Standing Joint Committee on Teachers' Salaries, the 60 members of which include only four women; and what action he proposes to take to give women teachers fuller representation?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: My concern in the constitution of the Standing Joint Committee on Teachers' Salaries is limited to the associations of local authorities and teachers respectively which are represented on the two panels of those committees. It has not been suggested, and would not be accepted by any of the interested parties, that I should nominate the representatives of the several associations. With regard to the suggestion that women should be more fully represented, I would point out that the National Union of Teachers, the body which appoints members of the teachers' panel, includes the great majority of women teachers in its membership, and also includes many more women members than men members.
    Sir G. HURST: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it fair to entrust to one union only the entire selection of teachers' representatives?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Yes, I think it is when all but a small fraction of the teachers are included in that union.
    Mr. HANNON: But surely the National Union of Women Teachers have some right to be represented?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: The body which represents the vast majority of teachers, more than twice the number of women teachers as compared with men, is the National Union of Teachers.
    Miss RATHBONE: Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider the possibility of nominating some additional women upon the committee, in view of the obvious injustice of the small representation of women? If he cannot concede the principle of asking additional organisations to appoint representatives, would it he beyond his power to redress the balance by making some additional nominations from experienced women teachers?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: This union contains about 40,000 men and 100,000 women.
    Miss RATHBONE: And how many representatives have the women?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: It is not my responsibility if the women, like the vast majority of our own women constituents, prefer to be represented by men.
    Miss RATHBONE—
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is too big a question to enter upon now.
    Mr. WHITEasked the President of the Board of Education by what authority the constitution of the Standing Joint Committee on Teachers' Salaries is determined?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: In the past there has been a difference of opinion between the President of the Board and the Standing Joint Committee on the Salaries of Teachers in Elementary Schools, as to the responsibility for the constitution of the committee. The committee and I are, however, now agreed that responsibility for determining what bodies shall be entitled to appoint representatives and the number of representatives to be appointed by each body rests with the President. I need hardly say that I should not vary the existing constitution without consultation with the committee.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSUKANCE.
  Mr. THOMAS LEWISasked the Minister of Health the amount actually credited to approved societies in accordance with Section 4 of the National Health Insurance Act, 1926, as amended by Section 21 of the National Health Insurance Act, 1928, for the purpose of preventing insured persons who are in arrears from being, or continuing to be, subject to reduction or suspension of benefits?
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): The sum of £500,000 available in respect of arrears in the contribution year ended 7th July, 1929, is in process of distribution to approved societies. The distribution of the £500,000 in respect of arrears in the contribution year ended 6th July, 1930, is awaiting the receipt of returns from the societies.
  Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to make
  2186
  such alterations in the present regulations as will permit co-operative societies to make a monetary payment to their customers in respect of national health insurance prescriptions?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: This matter has been the subject of very recent legal proceedings, and until the period for appeal against the decision has expired, it would not be proper for me to make any statement.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. FREEMANasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. J. Williams, of Upper House, Llyswen, near Brecon, who, being in an insurable occupation, was receiving unemployment benefit up to 25th February, 1931, but was stopped on account of his having at that date reached the age of 65 and thus became eligible for an old age pension; and, seeing that this man's application for an old age pension has been refused, whether he will arrange for his case to be reviewed to enable him to claim an old age pension from the date he reached the age of 65?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The claim for old age pension in this case had to be refused because Mr. Williams entered into insurance on 1st August, 1927, and five years' insurance had not elapsed when he attained the age of 65. He may become entitled to pension from 1st August, 1932, when the period of five years' insurance has been completed. As regards the last part of the question, I regret that I have no power to authorise the award of a pension where the statutory conditions are not satisfied.

  HOUSING.

    GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Health whether he can now make a statement in relation to the housing proposals which have been the subject of conversations between the Government and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Sir Tudor Walters)?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The matter is still under consideration.
    Sir K. WOOD: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is now the settled practice, on any kind of announcements in relation to Government housing and other proposals, that they are to be made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: No, Sir.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Would it not be better and save time, if the Government would let the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) know day by day what they are doing?
    Sir K. WOOD: Hear, hear!

    HALESOWEN.
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Minister of Health the number of houses which the Halesowen Urban District Council proposed to erect under the Housing Act, 1924, and the Slum Clearance Act, 1930, in the present five-year period; whether a revised programme has since been sent in; and, if so, what are the new proposals?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The Halesowen Urban District Council proposed to erect 425 houses during the next five years—377 under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, and 48 under the Housing Act, 1930. In the revised proposals which have just been received, the number of houses to be erected under the Act of 1930 is increased to 64.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Health the number of houses under construction sanctioned under the various Housing Acts; whether the progress being made by the various local authorities is satisfactory; and will he make a statement?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The number in England and Wales on the let instant was 36,421. I have set out my views on the present position in circular letters which were issued to local authorities on 8th instant, and I am sending my hon. Friend copies of those circulars.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how that number compares with previous years?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I cannot say without notice, except that it is about 40 per cent. higher than a year ago.

  FIRES (DEATHS)
  Mr. WHITEasked the Minister of Health the number of deaths which have occurred through fires in buildings in each of the last three calendar years?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The best information available is that contained in Table 22 of Part I of the Registrar-General's Annual Statistical Review, of deaths classified to the head of conflagration, excluding those due to accidental burns under the heads set forth in that table. The number of deaths classified to conflagration was 57, 78 and 61 for the three years 1928, 1929 and 1930, respectively. The figure for the last mentioned year is provisional.

  NURSING PROFESSION (WAGES AND HOURS) BILL.
  Mr. BROCKWAYasked the Prime Minister whether the Government is prepared to provide facilities for the further stages of the Nursing Profession (Wages and Hours) Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I regret that I can hold out no hope of time being found for the discussion of this Bill.
  Mr. BROCKWAY: In view of the hard conditions in the nursing profession, and the hopes held out at the conference of the Labour party in 1927, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to refer this matter to the Ministry of Health with a view to legislation being introduced?
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is no demand for this Bill among the nursing profession, and that it is a political stunt of the Labour party?

  MENTAL DEFICIENCY.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Minister of Health how many insane and mentally deficient persons have been a charge on the funds of the State and local authorities in each of the years 1928, 1929, and 1930?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: As the reply to this question involves the tabulation of a large number of figures, I will, with the hon. Members permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the reply:

  Chargeable to the State.

  Chargeable to Local Authorities.

  Insane Persons.

  Mentally Deficient Persons.

  Insane Persons.

  Mentally Deficient Persons.

  —

  On 1st January

  —

  On 1st January

  —

  On 1st January

  —

  On 1st January

  1928.

  1929.

  1930.

  1928.

  1929.

  1930.

  1928.

  1929.

  1930.

  1928.

  1929.

  1030.

  Criminals

  893

  910

  909

  In State Institutions.

  690

  785

  884

  122,754

  125,534

  126,941

  In Institutions (under Order).

  17,683

  19,138

  20,629

  (a)

  (a)

  (a)

  (b)

  (b)

  (b)

  In Naval and Military Hospitals.

  174

  163

  152

  Under Section 3 (M. D. Act, 1913).

  170

  172

  177

  "Service" and "Ex-Service" patients.

  5,453

  5,402

  5,295

  Guardianship

  1,143

  1,372

  1,559

  (b)

  (b)

  (b)

  In "places of safety".

  265

  261

  216

  (b)

  (b)

  (b)

  Total (insane persons).

  6,520

  6,475

  6,356

  Total (mentally deficient persons).

  690

  785

  884

  Total (insane persons).

  122,754

  125,534

  126,941

  Total (mentally deficient persons).

  19,261

  20,943

  22,581

  (a)

  (a)

  (a)

  (c)

  (c)

  (c)

  (a) Including cases chargeable to Boards of Guardians, and cases in Public Assistance Institutions and in receipt of Outdoor Relief.

  (b) 50 per cent. of cost contributed by the State. (N. B.—Under the Local Government Act, 1929, the State Contribution of 50 per cent. ceased on 31st March, 1930.)

  (c) Not including cases under Statutory Supervision.

  CIVIL SERVICE BONUS (PENSIONS).
  Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what pensions axe affected by the recent cuts in the Civil Service bonus?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The pensions affected are those of civil servants who, while serving, were in receipt of Civil Service bonus and who retired on or after 21st February, 1922.

  NATIONAL FINANCE (SCOTLAND).
  Major COLVILLEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what amount of taxation Scotland is estimated to have contributed to the revenue of the United Kingdom in the latest year for which figures are available; what amount of revenue was expended in that year on specifically Scottish services and as the Scottish share of general United Kingdom services, respectively; whether these ratios have been modified since the last detailed calculation was made; and, if so, in what direction?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Approximate figures for the year 1924–25 were published in February, 1926, and showed:

  £

  Contribution of Scotland to the revenue

  75,000,000

  Charge on the Exchequer for specifically Scottish services

  25,000,000

  These figures do not include any payments made in Scotland on account of general United Kingdom services, such as the National Debt, the Defence Services and War Pensions. The total of such payments in 1924–25 was about £526,000,000 and the difference between Scotland's contribution of £75,000,000 and the £25,000,000 paid for specifically Scottish services may be taken as Scotland's contribution to the total of £526,000,000. The Scottish contribution was thus about 9½ per cent. Statistics for later years are not available and could not be prepared without a disproportionate expenditure of labour; but I should not expect to find any substantial modification in the ratios.
  Major COLVILLE: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that Scotland is getting entirely fair treatment?
  Commander SOUTHBY: Is England getting fair treatment?

  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (OFFICERS).
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the proposed inter-departmental committee to inquire into the shortage of officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps has yet been appointed; and, if so, if he will state the terms of reference and personnel of the committee?
  Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: The Committee has not yet been set up. It is, however, hoped that it will be possible to announce its composition and terms of reference in a few days' time.
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: In the composition of this Committee, is consideration being given to the fact that a great deal depends on the future career offered in civil life after these officers retire, and is it considered therefore possible to include some representatives of the civil services which employ the services of medical officers?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am afraid I should have notice of that question.

  AGRICULTURE.

    GEBY SQUIRRELS.
    Mr. FREEMANasked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is his intention to exterminate all grey squirrels in this country; what method he proposes to adopt for killing them: whether he is satisfied that this method will cause a minimum of suffering to the animals concerned; and will he consider the desirability of refraining from destroying those in public parks and similar places?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): I have no authority to undertake the destruction of all grey squirrels. But a conference of the organisations concerned in the occupation and ownership of agricultural land, respectively, was recently convened by the Ministry and confirmed the opinion that this pest causes extensive damage and is widespread and increasing in numbers. The conference asked the Ministry to

    2193
    issue a leaflet describing the damage done by and the methods of destroying these pests. As regards public parks and similar places, I have no jurisdiction, except in the case of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Some years ago, it was decided to exterminate all grey squirrels then in the gardens, and, as new infestations appeared from the surrounding districts, to take steps to destroy them. I am satisfied that, with a view to preventing the spoliation of the gardens, the policy of extermination is necessary.

    SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY.
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Minister of Agriculture how the area at present under sugar-beet in Great Britain compares with that at this time last year?
    Dr. ADDISON: Provisional figures furnished by beet-sugar factories indicate that the acreage of beet contracted for 1931 is about 230,000 acres. The actual area in 1930 was 348,920 acres.
    Captain MACDONALD: What are the Government doing to encourage the growing of sugar-beet?

  SURPLUS ARMAMENTS (SALE AND EXPORT).
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Prime Minister what sales of obsolete armaments or war material have been made by the Government during the past year to foreign countries?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On the assumption that by "obsolete" is meant "surplus," the following sales of armaments and war material to foreign countries were made during the year ended 31st March, 1931:

  Lewis Guns

  …

  …

  703

  Rifles

  …

  …

  100

  Revolvers

  …

  …

  75

  Steel Helmets

  …

  …

  10,000

  Directors

  …

  …

  50

  Geophones

  …

  …

  10

  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: To which countries were they sent?
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Russia and Hollywood.
  The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. Gentleman will put his question down, it will be answered.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of any secret manufacture of munitions in this country for export and sale to Russia?
  HON. MEMBERS: Order!

  SCOTLAND.

    COURT OF SESSION BILL.
    Mr. SCOTTasked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the resolution sent to him by the Convention of Royal Burghs of Scotland expressing approval of the Court of Session Bill, and recommending the passage of the Measure through Parliament; and whether he will give the necessary facilities for ensuring that the Bill shall be passed at an early date this Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am in communication with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on the subject but, in view of the present state of Parliamentary business, I cannot give any undertaking to afford facilities for this Bill.
    Mr. SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Bill has the support of all parties in the House, and will he therefore endeavour to expedite it?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That information is not in accord with the information that has reached me.

    CENSUS ENUMERATORS (PAYMENT).
    Dr. HUNTERasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that census enumerators in Scotland who had been previously unemployed have, in addition to the loss of three days' insurance benefit, to wait eight or 10 weeks for the receipt of the fixed fee of £2; and will he take what steps he can to remedy this grievance?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Westwood): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have been in communication with the Registrar-General on the subject, and can assure my hon.

    2195
    Friend that the work of dealing with the claims of the enumerators is being expedited to the utmost.
    Dr. HUNTER: Can the hon. Gentleman give me any idea of the rate of the expedition?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Yes; up to the present time over 200 districts out of 1,076 districts have practically had their claims settled.

    EDUCATION.
    Mr. SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland have held any meetings for the year 1030–31 and, if so, how many, and the dates on which they were held; and whether he is prepared to recommend the reconstitution of that committee so as to secure regular meetings and constant supervision of the administration of education in Scotland?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative. It has been judicially decided that the Scottish Education Department may, ii they think fit, competently leave the general conduct of their business to their Secretary acting by and under the direction and authority of the Vice-President. This is the usual practice, and my right hon. Friend sees no ground for interfering with the existing method of administration.
    Mr. SCOTT: Will the right hop. Gentleman say what is the use of retaining this committee, which never meets and apparently is performing no functions?

    HERRING FISHING INDUSTRY.
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the result of the inquiry by the Fishery Board into the situation created by the embargo placed by the British Herring Fishing Association on fishing in Shetland before 16th June; and what steps he proposes to take to protect the interests of Shetland curers and fishermen?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I have to-day received a report from the Fishery Board for Scotland to the effect that after full consideration of all the circumstances,
    2196
    they are of opinion that the postponement of herring curing until the middle of June is in the best interests of the industry. The Boards report will be immediately considered, but as I have already indicated, any action which I could take would be limited to negotiation with representatives of the industry who, I understand, have already reaffirmed their previous decision.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great feeling that has been aroused by this combination which has been arrived at by an association outside Shetland, and will he ask his right hon. Friend not to relax his efforts to make a modification of the resolution of the Association?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I am aware of the great feeling referred to by the bon. Member, but I also understand that the local curers in Shetland are not unanimous in desiring an earlier date.
    Major MCKENZIE WOOD: Does the hon. Gentleman propose any steps to stop the local fishermen and curers acting up to their resolution?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: We have no power to act as suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    Major WOOD: I am not suggesting it; I am only asking if they propose to do it.

    PIERS AND HARBOURS (ORKNEY).
    Sir R. HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now able to make any statement with regard to the applications for piers in Orkney which have been forwarded to the Department of Agriculture?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the investigations regarding various piers in Orkney made by the Inter-Departmental Committee on Piers and Harbours and would refer him to my reply of the 4th instant to the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), in which I said that I thought that legislation will be required before the question of piers can be comprehensively dealt with, but that in the meantime I am exploring the possibility of dealing with more urgent cases so far as financial and legal difficulties will permit.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: Will the hon. Gentleman say when that exploration is likely to come to an end?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I cannot say when the exploration will come to an end, but my right hon. Friend no later than the last Recess paid a special visit to many of the piers and harbours so as to decide in his own mind the question of priority.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are still waiting to hear the results of that visit?

  ROYAL AIR FORCE (PARACHUTES).
  Sir W. BRASSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to the new British Russell-Lobe parachute which was demonstrated recently at Brooklands; and whether his experts have yet had an opportunity of testing its efficiency under service conditions?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): I am advised that the Russell-Lobe parachute is, like the Irvin parachute at present standard in the Royal Air Force, an American parachute manufactured under licence in this country. It was tested less than 18 months ago under the same conditions as all other parachutes submitted to the Air Ministry. If any new features have been embodied in its design since then, the makers have not brought the fact to the notice of the Air Ministry or asked that a further test should be conducted in the light of them. The Air Ministry is, of course, at all times ready to investigate the merits of any new design which affords promise of being an advance on the type at present in use. All the alternative types so far tested have been found to suffer from drawbacks of one kind or another which render them definitely inferior to the existing pattern.
  Commander SOUTHBY: Will the Under-Secretary get into communication with the makers of this parachute and find out if there is anything in it?
  Mr. MONTAGUE: I have already stated that it is quite within the province of the makers to submit whether there are new features. This particular parachute has been tested by the Air Ministry in the last 18 months.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS.
  Captain CROOKSHANKasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is intended to introduce, during the present Session, any legislation to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): A Bill to give effect to the Safety of Life at Sea and Load Line Conventions has been introduced in another place. It is not intended to introduce any further legislation to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts during the present Session.
  Captain CROOKSHANK: May I take it that nothing will prevent the presentation of clean bills of lading before the great white Throne?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    TANKS (EXPOETS TO RUSSIA).
    Mr. WEST RUSSELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the number of tanks to the order of the Russian Soviet Government for the export of which licences have been granted to Messrs. Vickers, Armstrong, Limited?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I cannot disclose the affairs of a particular company, but the general position in regard to the grant of licences for the exportation of tanks to Russia was indicated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford North (Sir N. Angell) on the 12th May.

    IMPORTS FROM VENEZUELA.
    Mr. McSHANEasked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of coffee, balata, timber and petroleum imported into this country from Venezuela in the year 1930; and whether he has any information to give with regard to the labour conditions under which some of these commodities are produced?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: During the year 1930, the total imports of the specified commodities into the United Kingdom consigned from Venezuela were as follow: Coffee, 4 cwt.; gutta percha and balata, 6,459 centals; wood and timber, 91,744 cubic feet; and crude petroleum 72,322,000 gallons. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. McSHANE: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any complaints with regard to conditions of labour?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No, and in any event that would be a matter for another Department. I am concerned merely with the imports.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    OIL EXTRACTION.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any further statement to make on the proposals for extracting oil from British coal supplies?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I regret that it is not yet possible to add anything to the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal in the House in Debate on the 16th April and on behalf of the Secretary for Mines on the 5th May.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to let me know when it will be ready?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, certainly.

    MINERS' WELFARE FUND.
    Mr. LAWTHERasked the Secretary for Mines if he is in a position to state the names of the committee to investigate the finances of the Miners' Welfare Fund?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): If my hon. Friend will repeat his question after the Whitsun Recess, I hope to be in a position to reply.
    Mr. LAWTHER: Are men to be appointed from organisations or as representing organisations, or from the point of view of their experiences in such matters?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I informed the House on the Third Reading of the Bill what my intentions were.

    WAGES.
    Major COLVILLEasked the Secretary for Mines the average weekly cash earnings of all workers employed in the coal mines in each district in Great Britain for the year 1930?
    Mr. SHINWELL: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Major COLVILLE: Is it not the case that Scotland has the highest average earnings of any district?
    Mr. SHINWELL: It is true that Scotland is the highest on the list, but Scotland has the highest average output.
    Mr. COCKS: Are not these earnings disgracefully low?
    Mr. SHINWELL: That is the general opinion.
    Following is the reply:

    AVERAGE WEEKLY CASH EARNINGS of all workers employed in the coal mines in each district in Great Britain during the year 1930.

    District.

    s.

    d.

    Scotland

    50

    4

    Northumberland

    36

    10

    Durham

    39

    7

    South Wales and Monmouth

    45

    1*

    Yorkshire

    44

    3

    North Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire

    45

    3

    South Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Cannock Chase and Warwickshire

    43

    11

    Lancashire, Cheshire and North Staffordshire

    41

    8

    Cumberland, North Wales, South Staffordshire, Shropshire, Bristol, Forest of Dean, Somerset, and Kent

    44

    9

    * This figure relates to the year ended January, 1931, and is affected "by the dispute which occurred during January.

    NOTE.—It should be noted that the particulars of cash earnings shown above do not include the value of allowances in kind which varied from about 5s. 4d. per week in Northumberland and Durham to about 2d. per week in Scotland, Lancashire, Cheshire and North Staffordshire.

  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  Captain P. MAC DONALDasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs how expenditure under the Empire Settlement Act of 1922 compared in 1930 with the amount authorised; what is the accumulated balance remaining out of moneys provided by Parliament; and what he proposes to do with such balance?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The net expenditure under the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, during the financial year 1930–31 was approximately £435,000 and the expenditure authorised in the Estimates for the same year was £788,000. There is no accumulated balance as any sums unexpended are surrendered to the Exchequer year by year in accordance with the provisions of the Appropriation Act.
  Captain MACDONALD: Have the Government any schemes for oversea settlement under consideration at the present time?
  Mr. THOMAS: The short position is that some of the Dominions find themselves unable to give effect to the agreements made between the Dominions and ourselves, and it is not for us to say to them that they ought to stick to their bargains if they find it impossible to do so. Therefore, it would be foolish for the Government to contemplate any scheme under any such circumstances.
  Captain MACDONALD: Cannot the Government alter the circumstances?

  INDIA.

    GUJARAT (LOCAL CONDITIONS).
    Mr. BRACKENasked the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that Mr. Vallabhai Patel, the Congress President, is creating a form of village organisation in Gujarat, whereby village dwellers, under threat of boycott, must support what is in effect a parallel government, under which local affairs and disputes shall be adjudicated by committees set up under Congress direction; and whether, in view of such a breach of the Irwin-Gandhi agreement, His Majesty's Government will denounce that agreement and reincarcerate Mr. Patel and his associates?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): There have been difficulties in Gujarat, but the situation has shown signs of improvement, and the statements in the hon. Member's question are not supported by the facts. The answer to the latter part of the question is "No."
    Mr. BRACKEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what are the signs of improvement; and also whether the "Times" newspaper and all other responsible newspapers are wrong in making that statement?
    Mr. BENN: I saw the telegram on which, no doubt, the hon. Member based his question, and I had it checked with the information at my disposal, and the result is the answer which I have given to the House.
    Mr. BRACKEN: As it is apparently-impossible to get a plain answer to any question—
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will get an answer to his questions if he puts them in the right way.
    Mr. BRACKEN: As it is impossible to get an answer from the Secretary of State for India, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter upon the adjournment to-morrow.

    POLITICAL SERVICE (REORGANISATION).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for India whether any further consideration has been given to the recommendations of the Butler Committee with regard to a reorganisation of the political service since the Round Table Conference adjourned; and, if so, whether any conclusions have been arrived at?
    Mr. BENN: No, Sir. The matter has not been overlooked, but further consideration of it must await the settlement of the major constitutional issues now under discussion.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two years ago he gave much the same answer; and may I ask when this matter will be dealt with?
    Mr. BENN: The hon. and gallant Member will be aware that this matter involves constitutional discussions.

    LABOUR CONDITIONS.
    Mr. BRACKENasked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the small earnings of persons employed in Indian cotton mills and other industries benefited by tariffs, he will take steps to ensure a fair standard of wages and conditions in those industries in India?
    Mr. BENN: The report of the Royal Commission on Labour in India will probably be available towards the end of June. I shall then be in a better position to consider whether I can usefully address the Government of India on the matters referred to by the hon. Member.
    Mr. BRACKEN: Surely as a matter of principle the right hon. Gentleman will support that proposal?
    Sir W. BRASS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say, if he does find that these standards are very low, that he will communicate with the Government of India on the subject?

    ROUND TABLE CONFERENCE.
    Major GRAHAM POLE(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for India whether it is true, as stated in the Press, that a decision as to the date of the Round Table Conference has been reached.
    Mr. BENN: As I have informed the House of Commons, the question of arrangements for the resumption of the Round Table Conference has been the subject of communication with the Viceroy. But it is quite contrary to fact to state that definite decisions have yet been reached.

  BRITISH COMPANIES, FRANCE (TAXATION).
  Mr. HANNONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to give further information with reference to the representations made by His Majesty's Ambassador in Paris on the question of taxation by the French fiscal authorities in cases where a British company holds the majority of shares in a French company?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): On the 23rd of April the French Government expressed their readiness to fix a date on which the representatives of the two Governments should discuss the whole question of double taxation. They were at once informed that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom had noted their decision with pleasure, hoped that they could fix a date at once, and requested that all proceedings against British companies instituted by the French fiscal authorities be stayed pend-
  2204
  ing the conclusion of the discussions between the two Governments. The French taxation authorities were, in consequence, approached on the 9th of May with a view to fixing a definite date for these discussions, and it is hoped that some arrangement will be reached for a meeting between representatives of the two Governments at the beginning of June. His Majesty's Ambassador is continuing to give the case his close attention.

  CARACAS (IMPRISONED STUDENTS).
  Dr. MORGANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there are any British subjects among the students of the university of Caracas, Venezuela, who have been imprisoned en masse and compelled to forced labour under government prison regulations?
  Mr. DALTON: So far as I am aware, no British subject has been imprisoned in Caracas for political activities.

  RUSSIA.

    BRITISH EMBASSY PLATE.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Ambassador has sought the assistance of the Soviet Government in recovering the silver plate that was taken from the British Embassy when it was attacked; and whether compensation for the properties of the British Embassy are part of the present claims against the Soviet Government?
    Mr. DALTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and I am happy to inform the hon. and gallant Member that the Soviet Government recently delivered to His Majesty's Embassy such portions of the plate as they have been able to trace. As regards the second part of the question, inter-Governmental claims are included in the present negotiations with representatives of the Soviet Government, but no claim in respect of British Embassy property has been presented on behalf of His Majesty's Government.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Can the hon. Gentleman say who were the holders of this stolen property during the last 12 years?
    Mr. DALTON: I cannot say, but I am sure the hon. Member will desire to congratulate the Government on their great diplomatic achievement.

    CURRENCY EXPORT.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the maximum sum that can be sent out of Soviet Russia without permission of the Government?
    Mr. DALTON: I understand that the Soviet Government, like a number of other Governments, prohibit the export of their own currency. As regards exchange transactions, purchases of foreign exchange, to whatever amount, must be made through the State Banking Institutions.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    LIEUTENANTS (SPECIALISATION).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether steps are taken to encourage lieutenants and lieut.-commanders (ex-mate) to apply for permission to specialise in gunnery, torpedo, navigation, staff duties, etc.; and how it is that so few of these officers have attempted to specialise recently?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): There is a standing Admiralty instruction to Commanding Officers to give every encouragement to suitable ex-Mates to put their names forward to specialise. It is not known why so few of these Officers attempt to specialise, but it is hoped that the position will be remedied under the revised scheme about which my right hon. Friend the First Lord made a statement yesterday.

    DEVONPORT DOCKYARD (SLOOPS).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the three sloops to be built in Devonport Dockyard will be laid down?
    Mr. AMMON: The three sloops to be built in Devonport Dockyard will probably be laid down as follows:
    First—August, 1931.
    Second and third—September, 1931.

    LOWER DECK PROMOTION.
    77. The following question stood upon the Paper in the name of Mr. HORE-BELISHA:
    To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can now give an outline of the recommendations of the committee set up to inquire into the mate scheme?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This question was answered yesterday, but may I ask whether the report is to be made public?
    Mr. AMMON: No, Sir; it is a purely departmental report for the advice of the Board of Admiralty, and it was embodied in the statement made by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that when I put this question yesterday the First Lord promised that he would reconsider the matter?
    Mr. AMMON: I have now given the answer after reconsideration.

  PARISH COUNCIL ELECTIONS.
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Home Secretary how many requests he has received from parish councils asking that the system of voting at parish council elections be altered to secret-ballot; and whether he proposes to take any action?
  Mr. CLYNES: During the last 10 years representations in favour of some alteration of the present system of electing parish councillors have been received in the Home Office from 79 parishes, the total number of parishes with parish councils being over 7,000. As to the latter part of the question, I may refer to my reply on the 23rd April to the Noble Lord the Member for East Norfolk (Viscount Elmley).

  POOR LAW RELIEF (TEST WORK).
  Mr. MARLEY(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the resolution adopted by the London County Council in which they have decided to use men in receipt of out-relief in connection with the building of an institution on the Downham estate?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I have seen nothing beyond a Press statement on this matter. As to the principle involved, I some time ago informed the council that my approval of test work was subject to

  2207
  the general condition that it does not cover work which forms part of necessary maintenance or upkeep and would otherwise he done for wages.
  Mr. MARLEY: In view of the fact that it is extremely difficult to decide what class of work or building may or may not be done for Wages, will the right hon. Gentleman keep a special eye upon this particular building and upon this particular council?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Now that my hon. Friend has drawn my attention to this case, I intend to make immediate inquiries.
  Mr. McSHANE: Is it not contrary to the Poor Law that men in receipt of relief at all should enter into competition in any way with those outside?
  Mr. OLDFIELD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very strong feeling was expressed on this matter at the last meeting of the London County Council, and, in view of the fact that it is a very important precedent—
  HON. MEMBERS: Speech!
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member appears to be making a speech.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: I rise, with your permission Mr. Speaker, to make a short personal explanation about an incident which arose in the Debate last Monday. The House will remember that the Debate was upon the Foreign Office Vote, and during the discussion on Russian propaganda an hon. Member on the opposite benches made an interjection when I was addressing the Chair. The interjection of which I complain was:
"How much are you getting out of it?"
The attention of the Chairman was drawn to the observation at the time, but, as the Chairman did not hear the observation, he contented himself with saying that if that insinuation had been made it should be withdrawn. I subsequently heard that the interjection was made by the hon. and gallant Member for West Dorset (Major Colfox). I saw the hon. and gallant Member for West Dorset last night and told him that with
2208
your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would raise this matter this afternoon. The hon. and gallant Member informed me that he had for some time been paired for to-day and consequently would not be able to be present, but I think I state his position fairly when I say that he neither denied having used the words nor admitted having used them. No apology was offered, and therefore I wish to say that I have never at any time received any payment from any source whatsoever for anything I have done in this House in connection with Anglo-Russian relations or the work of the Export Credits Committee. I have no pecuniary interest in the firms in my constituency which are engaged in Anglo-Russian trade, and my motives in this matter are entirely the service of the constituency that I represent. For many years prior to the War a great export trade with Russia was done in my constituency, and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, in these circumstances, to give to me such protection as you can afford.
HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Mr. TAYLOR: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Sir, whether there is any protection that you can afford me in this matter?
Mr. SPEAKER: I am always ready to give any hon. Member protection in this House, but I thought that the fact of the hon. Member having made that statement, which was received with unanimous approval in the House, was sufficient to close the incident. That is the usual practice.
Mr. MARLEY: In view of the fact that the hon. and gallant Member who made the insinuation, and is known to have made it, is not here, and would not even admit having made it and would not apologise, is there no action that you can take in the event of these insinuations being made across the Floor of the House?
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think it is any good pursuing these matters beyond a certain stage. As I have said, the fact that the hon. Member's statement denying the charges made against him was received with general approval in the House seems to me to close the incident. If the hon. and gallant Member

2209
for West Dorset (Major Colfox) could have been here to-day, he would have undoubtedly accepted the statement.
Mr. TAYLOR: I thank you, Sir, for your courtesy.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Dr. HUNTER: May I ask the Prime Minister if he can now state what business will be taken in Committee of Supply on Wednesday, the 3rd June?
The PRIME MINISTER: The business will be the Scottish Estimates—the Vote for the Board of Agriculture for Scotland.
Sir K. WOOD: Is it not time that the Liberal Opposition withdrew their demand for these Supply days?
Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: I presume that the form of the Prime Minister's Motion as it stands on the Blue Paper is the one that will be put to the House. There is a discrepancy between the Blue Paper and the White Paper, and it is quite obvious that the form on the White
Paper is not the one that the Prime Minister will desire to put. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman means to ask that other business should be taken before Supply. May I ask him what business he proposes to take if this Motion be carried?
The PRIME MINISTER: It is in the order of the Orders of the Day that the variation is, not in the form of the Motion. The Motion will be moved by me immediately as it stands, but the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right—there has been a mistake in the printing. The third item on the White Paper should be the first Order, and then the first item will become the second Order and the second item the third Order. We propose to make these corrections.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and that the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 110.

Division No. 259.]

AYES.

[3.55 p.m.

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

Dallas, George

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

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

Dalton, Hugh

Herriotts, J.

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

Hicks, Ernest George

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Hoffman, P. C.

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

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Alpass, J. H.

Duncan, Charles

Horrabin, J. F.

Ammon, Charles George

Ede, James Chuter

Hunter, Dr. Joseph

Arnott, John

Edge, Sir William

Isaacs, George

Attlee, Clement Richard

Edmunds, J. E.

Jenkins, Sir William

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Jones, Llewellyn-, F.

Barnes, Alfred John

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

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

Barr, James

Elmley, Viscount

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Foot, Isaac

Kelly, W. T.

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Freeman, Peter

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Benson, G.

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

Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

Kinley, J.

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

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

Kirkwood, D.

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

Knight, Holford

Broad, Francis Alfred

Gibbins, Joseph

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

Brockway, A. Fanner

Gill, T. H.

Lang, Gordon

Brooke, W.

Gossling, A. G.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Brothers, M.

Gould, F.

Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

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

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

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Gray, Milner

Law, A. (Rossendale)

Buchanan, G.

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

Lawrence, Susan

Burgess, F. G.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Lawson, John James

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

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Caine, Hall-, Derwent

Groves, Thomas E.

Leach, W.

Cape, Thomas

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

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

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Lees, J.

Chater, Daniel

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

Leonard, W.

Clarke, J. S.

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Cluse, W. S.

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

Lindley, Fred W.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Harbord, A.

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Cocks, Frederick Seymour.

Harris, Percy A.

Logan, David Gilbert

Compton, Joseph

Haycock, A. W.

Longbottom, A. W.

Cove, William G.

Hayday, Arthur

Longden, F.

Cowan, D. M.

Hayes, John Henry

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Cripps, Sir Stafford

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

Lunn, William

Daggar, George

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

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

Pole, Major D. G.

Stephen, Campbell

McElwee, A.

Potts, John S.

Strauss, G. R.

McEntee, V. L.

Price, M. P.

Sullivan, J.

McKinlay, A.

Pybus, Percy John

Sutton, J. E.

Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

Quibell, D. J. K.

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

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

McShane, John James

Rathbone, Eleanor

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

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

Raynes, W. R.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Richards, R.

Thurtle, Ernest

Mansfield, W.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Tinker, John Joseph

Marcus, M.

Ritson, J.

Toole, Joseph

Marley, J.

Romeril, H. G.

Tout, W. J.

Marshall, Fred

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Tnwnend, A. E.

Mathers, George

Rowson, Guy

Vaughan, David

Matters, L. W.

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Viant, S. P.

Maxton, James

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Walkden, A. G.

Messer, Fred

Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Walker, J.

Middleton, G.

Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

Wallace, H. W.

Millar, J. D.

Sanders, W. S.

Watkins, F. C.

Mills, J. E.

Sandham, E.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Milner, Major J.

Sawyer, G. F.

Wellock, Wilfred

Montague, Frederick

Scott James

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Sexton, Sir James

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Morris, Rhys Hopkins

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

West, F. R.

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

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Westwood, Joseph

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

White, H. G.

Mort, D. L.

Sherwood, G. H.

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Muggeridge, H. T.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

Murnin, Hugh

Shiliaker, J. F.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

Shinwell, E.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Oldfield, J. R.

Simmons, C. J.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Sitch, Charles H.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

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

Smith, Ben (Bormondsey, Rotherhithe)

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Palin, John Henry

Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B.(Keighley)

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

Palmer, E. T.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Perry, S. F.

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Phillips, Dr. Marion

Sorensen, R.

Mr. Paling and Mr. Charleton.

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

Stamford, Thomas W.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Everard, W. Lindsay

Ramsbotham, H.

Albery, Irving James

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)

Ferguson, Sir John

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Atholl, Duchess of

Fison, F. G. Clavering

Remer, John R.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

Ganzoni, Sir John

Reynolds, Col. Sir James

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

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

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Beaumont, M. W.

Grace, John

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Bird, Ernest Roy

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Simms, Major-General J.

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)

Bracken, B.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Skelton, A. N.

Brass, Captain Sir William

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Smithers, Waldron

Briscoe, Richard George

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Broadbent, Colonel J.

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

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Buchan, John

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

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Hurd, Percy A.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Butler, R. A.

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Castle Stewart, Earl of

Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

Thompson, Luke

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

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Tinne, J. A.

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

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

Todd, Capt. A. J.

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Lockwood, Captain J. H.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Colville, Major D. J.

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

Turton, Robert Hugh

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Marjoribanks, Edward

Wells, Sydney R.

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

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

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

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

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

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

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

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

O'Neill, Sir H.

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F

Peake, Capt. Osbert

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Penny, Sir George

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir Victor Warrender.

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

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Resolution agreed to.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Edward John Williams, esquire, for the County of Glamorgan (Ogmore Division).

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolution reported from the Select Committee:
"That, in the case of the North Killing-holme (Admiralty Pier) Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the Bill be permitted to proceed."

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill. Architects (Registration) Bill, with Amendments.
AGRICULTURAL LAND (UTILISATION) BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered upon Tuesday, 2nd June, and to be printed. [Bill 165.]
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 Consumers' Council Bill): Major Harvey; and had appointed in substitution: Sir George Jones. Report to lie upon the Table.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 2) BILL.
  As amended, further considered [2nd Allotted Day.]
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 2) BILL.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Restriction on use of vehicles at Parliamentary elections.)
    Earl WINTERTON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 35, to leave out Sub-section (2), and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section the election agent of a candidate at a Parliamentary election may register with the returning officer not later than thirty-six hours before the time appointed for the commencement of the poll any vehicles that are intended to be used for the conveyance of electors to the poll on behalf of the candidate, and the returning officer in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State shall issue in respect of each such vehicle a distinctive badge or permit, and any vehicle in respect of which a badge or permit has been so issued may be used for the conveyance of electors to the poll.
    Provided always that the number of vehicles to be registered, on behalf of any one candidate shall not exceed in the case of a borough other than a London borough a number equal to four vehicles for every polling district in the 6aid borough and in the case of a county eight vehicles for every polling district in the said county."
    4.0 p.m.
    This Amendment is of a very fundamental character, as it may practically be said to be a substitute for the second part of the Clause as it stands. The House will observe that the Government have got down an Amendment, which is also of a substitute character, and practically entirely alters the Clause. As the Amendment which I am moving is of this character, I believe that I shall be in order in discussing, to a considerable extent, the Clause itself, as only by so doing is it possible adequately to give the reasons for the substitution which I propose. We have had throughout this Debate the advantage, not only of the presence of the Home Secretary, but also that of the learned Solicitor-General. I think that all Members on this side of the House appreciate his courtesy, and also his forensic and dialectical ability, and this afternoon I should like, as a humble layman, to ask him a question or
    2228
    two on the subject of the real intention of the Government with regard to this Clause, and I hope that he will give me answers to those questions. I shall put the questions in the mildest language possible, so as not to give him the excuse of adopting a formula popular with all Law Officers, and already adopted by the Solicitor-General during the brief period he has been in the House. When asked awkward questions, addressed in vigorous or ironical terms, the reply is, "I can hardly believe that the hon. Member expects an answer to his question." I shall give him no such excuse, and will put my questions in the most polite and reasonable form, as is my constant custom.
    I do not propose to repeat the speech I made in Committee, but there are one or two observations of a general character which I should like to make. It remains true that this Clause in its original form, or as the Government intend to amend it, will curtail the facilities for voting at a time when the electorate is least inclined to exercise what should be a duty as well as a right. Of course, it would not be in order on this Clause to discuss the reason why there is this growing reluctance on the part of the electors. They may dislike or distrust the present party in power or their programme, or it may be due to a general decline of respect for, or belief in elected persons and elective assemblies—a reaction from the enthusiasm of a hundred years or so ago which followed various separate but connected events. Rut whatever the causes, the effect is obviously serious. At the latest by-election, for example, the number of electors who exercised the duty and the right of voting was not more than 50 per cent. of the whole electorate. The figures are given this morning. It must very injuriously affect the authority of this House, and indeed, of all parties. Yet by this Clause the Government are deliberately and designedly making it harder for country electors to vote.
    I would like to go into the reasons for this attitude. The Government and their supporters do not suggest that the registering of a vote is a function to be restrained by Statute. Certainly that has not been the opinion of hon. and right hon. Members below the Gangway. Indeed, at one time they thought voting

    2229
    had almost Divine sanction. I remember, in the 1910 election, at meeting after meeting which I addressed, supporters of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) got up at the back of the room and sang a song, the words of which are still familiar:
    "Why should we be beggars with the ballot in our hand?
    God made the land for the people."
    I am not certain that I have got the words correctly, but that was their effect. I was informed at the time that the least instructed electors, spurred on by their Nonconformist spiritual advisers, used to hurry in Tory motor cars to record a vote for the Liberal candidate, treating it almost as a duty to their Deity. The act of recording a vote is not regarded, I think, as immoral by any party in the House, nor is the act of riding in a motor car to the poll immoral or wrong in the opinion of the Government, because they themselves have provided in the Bill, although in the most cumbrous way, for motors to be used.
    Therefore, my first question to the Solicitor-General is: At what point does riding in a motor car to record a vote become so unrighteous a deed, so detrimental to the public interest, so utterly wrong in every way, as to warrant the Solicitor-General using his unrivalled powers of persuasion, which we have already begun to admire during the short time he has been in this House, to induce this House to prevent it? I am going to supply the obvious answer, and I hope that the Solicitor-General will agree with it. It is: When the Tory candidate has more cars than the Socialist or Liberal candidate. That is when it becomes immoral, and as, for various reasons, the Conservative candidate usually does have more cars, in the opinion of the Solicitor-General it is always. I would like to ask why is it wrong, if the answer I have supplied is the correct one, as I believe?
    I would submit that the question of wealth does not come into the matter. Conservative candidates may be, and very often are, poorer than the candidates opposed to them. Certainly at two elections I have fought my opponents have been very much wealthier than myself. A Conservative candidate may not own a motor car, while his opponent may have several. If the cost of the use of motor cars is to he taken into consideration, I
    2230
    suggest that it would be a very small sum if the cost of the hire of cars were included in election expenses. I suggest that the average candidate would be able to spend that money, and keep well within the limit of election expenses. It is not a question of using the power of money by legal but unfair methods to secure a candidate's return which comes into the matter at all. It is not a case of a candidate using this money which, if it had been given in his election return, would mean that his expenses would exceed the limit. Therefore, I cannot see where the injustice in the present Clause comes in, why it is necessary to meet it, why it is necessary to meet it in the way the Government intended to meet it in the first instance and the way in which they now intend to meet it in that Amendment.
    Is the suggestion that the State ought to prevent any inequality, however legitimately it may arise, between candidates in respect of the facilities at their disposal? If that is the contention, merely to limit the use of motor cars is only redressing one of the many forms of inequality that may arise. If that really is the Government's view, they ought to be logical. I could mention two other cases of inequality which equally ought to be redressed. They should abolish the powers of trade unions to place the services of their staff, free of charge, at the disposal of a Socialist candidate, which is obviously an inequality, and they should limit the use of window cards. In some constituencies it is not possible for the supporters of a particular candidate to put up the window cards of that candidate. It is not necessary to specify any particular party. It happens, no doubt, in the case of all, though more frequently in the case of the candidates of the party that sit on these benches and below the Gangway than opposite. I make myself responsible for that statement, and I could give personal examples which have come under my experience. These things are neither more nor less aids or detriments to voting for a particular candidate than the use of motors. One of them operates wholly, and the other partially, in favour of hon. Members opposite.
    I come to what in my opinion is an even more grave defect of the Clause and of the Government's Amendment, a defect which my Amendment partially

    2231
    removes but not wholly, because it is impossible to remove it wholly by amending this Clause. The Clause, as it stands, or as the Home Secretary wishes to amend it, would clearly inflict far greater inconvenience and hardship in the case of a country than of an urban constituency. Generally speaking, country electors are far more favourably disposed to those who sit on these benches than to those who sit opposite, or below the Gangway. Therefore, it might be held, though I hope it is not true, that the sinister intention of the Government in this matter is to hinder and obstruct the votes of those who are politically opposed to them. That is the method of manipulators all over the world.
    Take the case of the negroes in the Southern states of America and certain racial groups in certain European countries—people who are in groups having a racial or religious kinship—who, if they polled their full strength would swamp their more powerful, though numerically fewer, opponents. Methods are invariably adopted to stop those people polling. That is the simplest way to prevent them returning their candidates. It takes the form of prohibiting them from using public vehicles, preventing them getting petrol and in other ways preventing them from getting to the poll. Many years ago I was in South America. I was being introduced by the Mayor of a town to a club. I had to write down in the Club Book what my profession was, and I wrote Deputy of the Chamber. The Mayor said, "Do not say that. Deputies are of no importance in this country. You should describe yourself as an English Lord." I asked him why deputies were of no importance. He said, "Because in our country every deputy who has been elected has succeeded either by intimidation or in other ways preventing his opponents going to the poll." He gave me several examples, some of which bear a striking resemblance to the proposals in this Clause. Voters from outlying districts were unable to obtain conveyances to get to the poll. Their horses or mules mysteriously disappeared the night before the poll. I should hesitate to suggest that these are the motives which have actuated the Government in bringing this Clause forward, but, on the face
    2232
    of it, there is a very distinct suspicion of their intentions.
    My Amendment follows to some extent the Government Amendment, but in a simpler form, and permits a fairer allocation of motor vehicles. In the case of a constituency like mine, where there are 76,000 electors, the Government Amendment would mean that each candidate would be permitted to have only 76 motors, which is an absurdly small number in a country district. There is nothing that I can see that is in the least unfair to any political party. Even with any Amendment that can be made to it, the Clause will make for inconvenience and harassment to the voter. For instance, in the part of England in which I live certain wage earners, who have motor bicycles for the purpose of getting to their work, are in the habit of taking friends to and fro on a trailer or on the pillion. No doubt, at election time they have been in the habit of using their bicycles to get to the poll and taking their friends with them. Under the Clause, even with my Amendment, it will be impossible for them to do it any longer. That is only one example of many that might be given. My Amendment is simpler and more equitable than that of the Government.
    Captain BOURNE: I support the Amendment because I think it is very much more logical to ration motor cars in accordance with the number of polling stations than with the number of electors on the register. Several points were overlooked when we dealt with this matter in Committee. One thing, which I think has not been mentioned before, is that, owing to the giving of the vote to women at the age of 21, the number of removals has increased out of all proportion to what it used to be. Last October I was calling on a new housing estate in my constituency. I had with me an advance copy of the register, which was not then in force. I found, very much to my surprise, that some 10 per cent. of the entries in the register were already completely out of date owing to the number of women who had married since 15th July and had moved, some to the other end of my constituency, some to neighbouring constituencies, and a few to remote parts of England, where, in the event of an election, no party would have been able to poll them.

    2233
    I do not think the enormous difference that has been made by giving votes to women between 21 and 30 in this respect is realised. A man who marries generally settles down close to his work. He does not leave the district. The case with a woman is totally different. She has to go where her husband works. At this time of the year I should think the total percentage of removals from that cause alone would be about 25 per cent. The woman cannot go to the poll with her husband, because in the majority of cases he is registered in respect of the district in which he and his wife are now residing, and a certain number of motor cars are necessary to deal with that problem alone. These people are morally entitled to vote and the Government have no right to put obstacles in their way by refusing to allow the use of motor cars. Very few of us know on which side these people are going to vote. There is a perfectly unreasoning dread on the part of hon. Members opposite that, because a person goes in a motor car belonging to one party, he will necessarily vote for that candidate.
    There is another aspect of the question. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite, most of whom represent urban and semi-urban constituencies, realise the conditions in the sort of constituency in which I was brought up and in which I have taken a good deal of interest politically before I got into the House. I lived in a parish which contained 500 inhabitants and occupied some 3,000 acres, and where there were not six houses together at any one point of the parish. As a matter of fact, the polling station was in the next village. Before the War it was five miles away. People who lived in the remotest part of that village had to walk five miles across country—in winter, across heavy, wet, clayey fields. That was a very long way to go for people who were employed in agriculture. Many of them had to walk that distance, making a total of something like 14 miles, in order to exercise their undoubted right to cast a vote. I ask hon. Members opposite to think of that.
    That state of affairs was not exceptional in the particular constituency of which I am speaking. It was a fairly big constituency. Its population was not very heavy, but the villages were few and far between. It was almost a case
    2234
    for comment and surprise to those who came to stay in that part of the world for the first time that they never saw the village. People would motor through five or six parishes and would not realise that they (had been through a parish at all. There were few houses by the roadside. They were scattered over wide areas. Yet that state of affairs is far more common in parts of England than hon. Members opposite seem to realise, and they are going to make it very difficult for inhabitants to vote for whatever party they wish to vote unless they meet their convenience to the full.
    I have a certain number of figures which may perhaps interest the House. I admit that they relate to the worst cases, but, if we are legislating to put a statutory maximum upon anything, whether it be election expenses or whether it be the number of cars to be allowed, we cannot legislate fairly unless we make our statutory maximum at least fair for the most difficult cases. A statutory maximum does not mean that you must have that total number of cars, but it does, in the most difficult areas where people have the greatest distances to walk in order to get to the poll, do something towards ensuring that at least the majority of the inhabitants can vote if they so wish. I will give one or two examples. I will take, first of all, the example of the Bridgwater Division of Somerset, polling district Porlock. Among other parishes, is the parish of Oare. No part of the population of Oare is less than five miles distant, and between Oare and the polling place is Porlock Hill, two miles long, in some places with a gradient of one in five. The electorate of Oare is 60. How many of those persons does the right hon. Gentleman think will be able to vote without some assistance? Does he wish the man who has had to do a hard day's agricultural work to walk five miles, including a hill two miles long, with a gradient of one in five? Does the right hon. Gentleman want to put that sort of difficulty upon voters if they wish to exercise their rights? He must admit that even under this proposal these people will have little chance of voting. Surely the Home Secretary and the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot wish to deprive the voters of England of the opportunity to express their views on politics.

    2235
    I will take another example. There is the polling district of Simonsbath. It has an area of 20,344 acres, and, as the crow flies, you can take a straight line of seven and a-half miles across the parish. The electors number 170. Some of the electors would have at least five miles to travel over the bleakest and wildest of moorland country. Without the use of cars, it was not expected, in fine weather, that more than 50 per cent. would poll, and in a winter election not more than 25 per cent. would poll. Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to condemn women to walk five miles in winter in the face of cold, driving rain or snow, across the bleakest moorland in England? Do hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to do that in order to satisfy a purely jealous passion against motor cars?
    I will give another case. Take the constituency of Berwick-on-Tweed. It has a population of electors of 39,000. There are 44 polling districts, and only in six of these are the majority of the voters within walking distance of the poll. In every other case the majority of the electors have to travel distances up to eight and 10 miles. Do hon. Members opposite consider that it is really reasonable that the electors of Berwick-on-Tweed should have to walk 16 miles in order to record their votes, or that they should be deprived of the vote which hon. Members opposite are always urging so eloquently every man and woman ought to have? I will take the last and most extreme case of the lot. It is the Division of Cardiganshire. I will not attempt to pronounce the Welsh names, as Welsh names are beyond me. In one case people living on one side of the mountain have to go 33 miles each way if they wish to go and record their votes. What are they going to do? It will take them two days to walk there and two days to walk back again.
    I do not know whether the Home Office have any information or particulars of these points or whether the Clause is merely brought in out of the imagination of the Home Secretary, backed by the Solicitor-General out of the fertility of his brain. Why do hon. Members opposite always assume that the majority of motor cars must belong to the Tories 2 I notice, as I go about my constituency, that a very large percentage of the
    2236
    electors own motor cars. Although I have a large majority, I do not think that all those people who own motor cars, or anything like them, are my supporters. I imagine that quite a large percentage of them support the party opposite. In view of the growth of motor cars—there is one car to every 30 of the population or some figure like that—do they mean to say that none of their people own motor cars? I cannot believe it. Possibly—and it is the only explanation of which I can think—when once a man begins to get a little prosperous and begins to own a little property, such as a motor car, he begins to see the futility and the fatuousness of the proposals of hon. Members opposite, and for that reason he will not support their candidate whom he sincerely hopes will be at the bottom of the poll.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Yesterday we heard it said that the Government wished to do away with university representation because they knew the more educated a man was the more certain he was to vote for the Conservative party. Now they are taking a further step to make it more difficult for electors to get to the poll. They are dealing with agricultural workers because they know perfectly well that they get little support in the agricultural districts. They know that as a rule the agricultural worker is a Conservative, and therefore they are determined to make it as difficult as possible for him to get to the poll. Their one object in the Bill is not to bring any fairness into our elections, but to make them as inconvenient as possible. The Solicitor-General sat there sneering and grinning while the hon. Gentleman was speaking. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] We all saw it. There is nothing unparliamentary in that expression. What I said was absolutely true. The Home Secretary, in the Amendment which he has put down, has gone some slight way towards meeting our objections and has taken away some of the absurdities of the original Clause, but he has not gone nearly far enough. There is not the least doubt that he has not given proper consideration to the matter.
    Take my constituency. Under this scheme, I shall be allowed 34 cars. The constituency covers a distance of something over 30 miles. How can you possibly expect people living in a con-

    2237
    stituency like that to get to the poll when there will only be 34 cars? Many of those people have to walk four and a-half miles, and you cannot expect women with children to go four and a-half miles on foot in order to vote. You cannot expect a man who has been spending the whole day haymaking or following the plough to walk four and a-half miles in the evening to record his vote. The Solicitor-General and the Home Secretary want to make it impossible for him to get to the poll. The number of motor cars suggested by them is absurdly small. The suggestions put forward in the Amendment of my Noble Friend are very much sounder. A distribution of cars by means of polling stations would undoubtedly be very much fairer than a distribution by means of counted noses. The more scattered are the areas, the more polling stations there are, and therefore, he should take into consideration the scattered nature of an area in Judging the necessity of motor cars. Hon. Members opposite who have their constituencies in towns have their polling stations grouped together, and probably very few of their constituents have to go more than half a mile. There are very few of my constituents who are within half a mile of the polling station, and a great number of them are more than a mile from the polling station. The electors in the towns do not require cars so much, but in the country districts a very large proportion of the electors cannot possibly get to the poll unless there are cars to take them.
    The Home Secretary's scheme allows for only a small number of cars, and these will have to drive tremendous distances. The scheme ought to make it possible to avoid cars being worked for the whole of the day. A man cannot be expected to drive from 8 o'clock in the morning until 9 o'clock at night, practically never stopping, as will be the case under the scheme of the Home Secretary. Therefore, it will be necessary, if the scheme is carried in its present form, for arrangements to be made for cars to run, say, from 8.0 till 12.0, or from 8.0 till 3.0 and from 3.0 till 9.0 or something like that. Unless something is done on those lines, the 34 cars in my constituency will almost be useless. I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter. They had to take back the original Clause, and they have
    2238
    now put forward another scheme which is very nearly as bad. I hope that they will accept the scheme put forward by my Noble Friend.
    Mr. LANG: I could, I think, have understood much better some of the passion aroused on this question from the benches opposite if there had also been a consideration of what seems to me to be a very vital fact, that is, that the people with whom they and we are so much concerned, the people who do the work of this country, are the people who seem to be almost entirely deprived of the possession of means of transport. I should have been much more impressed by the argument if I had heard a single remark that the people who do the work of the world should so be able to appropriate such share of it as would provide them with some of the surplus transport which is so rapidly gathered together for certain purposes on election day. I represent a purely industrial town, but I have lived almost all my life in country districts and am fully aware of the difficulties with regard to the long distances that exist between one polling station and another. But I should have thought that the appropriate method of dealing with those difficulties was not to increase the number of cars, certainly not a greater proportion of ears of one party over another, but to increase the polling facilities. If the answer to that be that that would be expensive, then it is a totally inadequate answer. The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) made a strong point of that. If it is so important that everybody should have the opportunity of recording their vote at elections, no question of expense ought to be allowed to stand in the way of the provision of adequate polling facilities.
    The contradictions in the speeches of hon. Members opposite surprise me. We are told that cars should not convey people indiscriminately to the poll, and that people often travel in the car of one candidate and vote against him. On the other hand, we are told by one hon. Member opposite that the agricultural labourers are entirely Conservative, despite certain results at the last election.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Not entirely.
    Mr. LANG: Mostly. Therefore, from the hon. and gallant Member's point of view, they are perfectly safe. One point that is not stressed in the Debate is the use of cars not merely in carrying voters to the poll but the psychological effect upon voters. By the continual processions of decorated cars. That is a much greater asset to the Conservative party on polling day than the mere transport of voters. One has often seen long processions of cars, decorated with party colours, and often accompanied by very influential people. That sort of thing has a considerable psychological effect upon certain voters who, for reasons that I need not go into, are to be found voting for the party opposite. I regret that the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) should have said what he did about Nonconformist spiritual advisers counselling their people to go in Tory cars to vote against the Conservative candidates.
    Earl WINTERTON: No, I did not say that. It would be a serious charge. What I did say was that Nonconformist spiritual advisers had strongly at the 1910 election urged their people to vote for the Liberal candidates, and in many cases they travelled in Tory cars. I never suggested that the ministers advised them to do so.
    Mr. LANG: I am glad to hear that statement from the Noble Lord, and I accept it at once. I made an error. I cannot allow it to go forward that Nonconformist spiritual advisers are the only people who ever give instructions to members of their flocks how they are to vote; not by any means. But I am glad that those days are nearly over. There was a time when almost every Nonconformist minister was upon the Liberal executive, and when the Anglican Conservative was nearly always a most important person in the Conservative organisation. I am glad that those days are practically over. The Nonconformist ministers of the far-off days, when they were Liberals, were dissociated from motor cars, because not only did they regard them as dangerous things but almost as works of the Devil, and they often regarded Conservative candidates as of similar origin.
    It ought to be made plain that some of us feel that the anxiety there is to trans-
    2240
    port voters to the poll might also be shown to provide for people who do the work of the world a larger share of the pleasurable part of transport. Enough attention has not been drawn to the fact that the increased transport system of omnibuses has to a very large extent negatived the difficulties of getting from one place to another, such as were instanced by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford. I was rather moved by his plea on behalf of young married women, but I must warn him that there is a danger for him there. It may be a very good thing to take the young married women back to their homes after voting, but unless the hon. and gallant Member can assure the husbands that the cars will not bring the mothers-in-law back, he may lose very much more than he gains. Therefore, that is a thing which cuts both ways.
    The problem is different in the rural districts from the urban districts. The provision of greater polling facilities is the answer in the rural districts. In the urban districts there can be no case. More than once my colleague and I have told of our experience in Oldham, a great industrial town of 150,000 people, where we have a perfectly honourable agreement, which is kept by the three parties, that motor cars are not necessary. Apart from cars which are provided for the agents and candidates, which are not allowed to take a voter to the poll, no motor transport is permitted. If as the Noble. Lord suggests our opposition is one of unreasoning passion against motor cars, I would point out that in the enlightened town of Oldham that decision against motor cars is shared by members of his own party and members of the party below the Gangway opposite, as well as our own party.
    Major GEORGE DAVIES: The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lang) was led away in two respects from the subject that ought to be under discussion. He suggested that there should be another way, which is not provided for in the Bill or in the Amendment, for dealing with the situation, namely, the provision of greater polling facilities in the rural areas. If it were in order to pursue that subject, it would be very interesting. I think we should all be agreed, if it were possible to carry it out, that instead of developing facilities for bringing the

    2241
    people to the polls we should concentrate on bringing the polling stations nearer to the people. Indeed I hope that some day we may be able to deal with all electors as is done with absent voters, that is, through the post. But that is not the position with which we are faced. We have to take things as they are. The hon. Member realises, but some of his colleagues do not, that the situation in the country districts is entirely different from that in the urban areas. He said that one of the great advantages possessed by the Tory party in having so many cars at their disposal was that they were able to have processions and to flaunt their colours to influence the weaker minded who, in their weakness of mind, might be induced to vote for hon. Members opposite. I would remind the hon. Member that so long as those cars are not carrying voters to the poll they can have their processions and flaunt their colours, and nothing can prevent them.
    I support the Amendment with more than a vain hope that the Solicitor-General or the Home Secretary will support the principle behind it. The reason that I do that is because the principle is admitted by a later Amendment which stands in the name of the Home Secretary. Whatever the Government or their supporters think in regard to industry, they are being weaned to the quota system in regard to the matter now before us. Instead of saying that the cars shall be pooled, they now suggest that there should be a quota based on the numerical strength of the Division. Our suggestion is the same in principle but a little different in application. Moreover, it provides a more generous quota than is suggested by the Home Secretary's Amendment. Our reason is that so long as there are, as was admitted by the last speaker, great variations and difficulties which have to be met in the rural districts of England, it is not fair in legislation to ignore that state of affairs.
    Many objections and difficulties have been put forward as to what will result if our Amendment or something substantially on the same lines is not accepted by the Government. There are one or two other difficulties that I should like to bring to the attention of the Home
    2242
    Secretary. It is a remarkable thing that in the year 1931, when we have been priding ourselves industrially and economically on the development of every kind of ingenious device for overcoming the difficulties of geographical distance, such as the aeroplane, the railway train, and the motor car, in connection with the question of citizens exercising the highest duty, or one of the highest duties, of citizenship, we should say to them: "No. You shall not take advantage of these developments. You shall go back, as it were, to the stone age." It is about the same thing as if we were not to be allowed to use the post for sending our election addresses or other means of keeping in touch with our constituents. Surely at this time in the development of the world, we ought to make use of every facility that will save people time and trouble.
    It is particularly the saving of time that I want to press upon the House as a new point of view. There is a large number, particularly now that women have been enfranchised at 21, of housewives who cannot afford to be away from home long enough to allow them to walk any lengthy distance to and from the poll. That means that the children have to be left with no one to look after them, and arrangements have to be made. There is also the necessity of cooking for the husband when he gets home from work. The husband and the wife cannot go together to vote, and when evening falls it is not satisfactory to go to the poll through dark country lanes in rural England. The point of view of the motor car being a time saver, for the voter, particularly the woman, who can only afford to be away from home the shortest possible time to exercise the duty of voting, is a consideration to which the Solicitor-General will, I am sure, not be blind. Other speakers from this side have emphasised the importance of the question from different points of view.
    There is one thing that the hon. Member for Oldham did not touch upon. I understand that the three parties in Oldham agreed to make no use of motor cars. Did they make that rule with regard to bringing in removals and outvoters? Were all the removals and outvoters disfranchised by mutual agreement, or not?
    Mr. LANG: So far as I am aware, and I think I am correct, there were no motor cars for bringing any voters to the poll; not even from the out districts.
    5.0 p.m.
    Major DAVIES: I should be very much surprised if, on further investigation, the hon. Member finds that the agreement extended to the removals and out-voters, because that would be simply a mutual agreement to disfranchise them. I understand that that did not take place. Certainly, I cannot think that the agreement was carried out in that respect. Hon. Members opposite think that we Conservatives have had an unfair advantage over them in regard to motor cars. We are told that we have had an advantage over them by our wealth or by having wealthy friends who are able to give us these means of transportation for bringing Tory voters to the poll to the exclusion of others. There are two complete fallacies about that. Morals and ethics apart, it is a national joke that the Tory car carries about fifty-fifty so far as party voters are concerned. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, and one hon. Member shakes his head. I can speak for my own division, and I know that I have too often been a public benefactor by having carried voters to the poll who on their arrival voted for the candidate holding the views of hon. Members opposite or of hon. Members below the Gangway. However, I managed to get returned. There are enormous numbers of motor bicycles and sidecar combinations. They are very deadly combinations but very common. It is absurd to say that people who have these vehicles are the people included in the thoughts of hon. Members opposite when they talk about the power of wealth in providing facilities for transport. On polling days in my constituency I see many maids being given lifts in sidecars or on the pillions of the motor bicycles, and those engaged in the manufactures of the district who own these motor bicycles always take a pal to the poll. All these people are going to be disfranchised, or at any rate prevented from lending this method of transport. To that extent the Bill will disfranchise those who are not wealthy Tories but people who in 99 cases out of 100 vote for hon. Members opposite or for the Liberals.
    2244
    As I have said, there are two complete fallacies in the minds of hon. Members opposite. When we pride ourselves on the progress made by Morris or Austin, the idea is that by the cheapening of production we are bringing the motor car more and more into use by a larger number of the population, and are thus providing a means of rapid transport. As that progress goes on is it to be supposed that fewer people who possess this means of transport are likely to vote for the party opposite? We know perfectly well that if we count noses and take the population as a whole, the vast majority of the people are included among the weekly wage-earners, indirectly or directly. Is it to be supposed that with the development of the cheaper motor bicycle, the cheaper sidecar combination, the cheaper three-wheeler and the cheaper baby Austin, or something corresponding to it, more and more of that majority of the population will not be included among those who acquire this means of transport?
    It seems to be extraordinarily shortsighted for us to adopt the proposals of the Bill. The day is coming soon when more and more of the population will wish not so much to cadge lifts as to exercise their rights as individuals to use the means of transport that they own and have paid for. While some limitation of the use of vehicles may be arguable, personally I think it most unfortunate to have any limitation at all. The limitation of figures proposed is absurdly small. In principal the Amendment is precisely the same as that which stands in the name of the Home Secretary, and it has so much common sense and logic behind it that even the learned Solicitor-General, whose smiles have been commented on, might be expected to welcome the arguments that have been put before him.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Stafford Cripps): The Government realise that this proposal in some form has a good deal of merit in it because, as hon. Members have said, there is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary dealing with the same subject. The part of the Clause with which we are dealing is not the part which relates to persons using their own cars. That has been

    2245
    dealt with by the House. What we are dealing with here is the question of putting other cars at the disposal of electors. I entirely agree that it is extremely desirable to have a good turn-out of electors. Everyone desires that a large majority of the electors should go to the poll. But I cannot agree with those who suggest seriously that that cannot be achieved without a vast number of cars. I have experience of living in the country in a fairly isolated district, and I know that not only for the purposes of voting but for ether purposes people are prepared to walk long distances. Let me give an instance. In our little village there is a welfare centre. It is attended by women from five villages around, many of them three or four miles off. These women are quite prepared to walk with their children once a fortnight in order to get to the centre. After all, what we are dealing with here is a journey once every four years or something of the sort, on the average.
    Major DAVIES: But those women get a cup of tea at the end of the journey.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: For which they pay. I do not think that that is any inducement. Surely it is not necessary to offer them the inducement of a car to record a vote once every four years. The Amendment has been put on the Paper in the name of the Home Secretary because we were so disappointed with the general view that the House took as regards the public spirit of motor car owners. We felt that the scheme which was adopted originally, in view of the general opinion of the House, would probably not work, because no cars would be put at the disposal of the registration officer. Now we have adopted the principle which is put forward in our Amendment. But in adopting the principle of course one cannot adopt necessarily the numbers now proposed. The real difference between us is, firstly, on the numbers, and, secondly, on the method by which it is proposed in this Amendment to calculate the numbers.
    Before I come to deal specifically with that point I do not wish to evade an answer to the question which the Noble Lord put to me in such extremely kind terms. He asked, when was it that riding in a motor car at elections became im-
    2246
    moral—at what point in regard to the number of cars? He suggested that the answer was, "When the Tories have more cars than the other party." If the Noble Lord will do himself justice and will look back into the history of election law, he will appreciate that the proposal to limit the number of motor cars to be used at an election is nothing but a natural extension of the Act of 1883. Under that Act it was made illegal for anyone to hire a vehicle—at that time a carriage—in order to convey voters to the poll. In those days the question of taking voters long distances could not be contemplated at all, because—the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) spoke of 33 miles over the Welsh mountains—no carriage would have done the journey in the day. That problem, therefore, was not contemplated. But it was laid down that no unfair advantage should be derived by any one candidate by reason of his hiring vehicles in which to take electors to the poll. It was made an illegal practice if he did so. Since the introduction of motor cars and the far more common ownership of such vehicles as motor cars, the problem has changed, because it is no longer necessary for people who have large numbers of friends with motor cars to hire at all; they can get the cars lent.
    Earl WINTERTON: I am loth to interrupt the Solicitor-General, as he did not interrupt me. As one who has had experience of elections when there were very few motor cars, I can say that the preponderance of people owning carriages was just as great in those days as is the preponderance in the case of motor cars now. We gained just as much advantage in the days of carriages. I remember some very long distances being covered, 14 or 15 miles, by voters who were brought to the poll in dog carts.
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: The whole theory of election law has always been that no party, apart from carriages that they own themselves, should get any advantage by being able to acquire temporarily, for the purposes of polling day, other vehicles to convey electors to the poll. Now that the use of motor cars has become so common I suggest that the proposal of the Government is a most natural thing. I know that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite object

    2247
    to logic strongly, but it would be more logical to forbid the use of loaned motor cars altogether. I am glad to see that the Noble Lord the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Lord Erskine) agrees with me. Unfortunately he and I are not in a majority on that matter. The step which has been taken by the Government is a step which will limit as far as possible the use of motor cars, while still retaining a sufficient number in the constituencies to do all the work that really is necessary to be done. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) shakes his head, but if he will examine the figures I am sure he will agree that, taking the average county constituency, where you have at least two candidates and possibly three, the use of 100 to 150 motor cars should be sufficient to deal with all the eases that have been mentioned.
    I ventured to smile when the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford was speaking about those extraordinary instances of places like Berwick-on-Tweed and Cardigan, and people who would be disfranchised, because he was really speaking as if no motor cars at all were to be permitted. That is not the proposal of the Government. Our proposal in the case of these constituencies would be that about 50 cars could be used by the candidates. It is hardly right to take a particular instance of an isolated village and to say, "Here are 100 voters who will be entirely disfranchised." Of course, if all the parties agreed not to send a car to that village the voters might suffer in some way, but one imagines that in a case of that sort a proper agent would see that cars were sent there.
    Then there was the further point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Major Davies) as regards the use of cars by various parties. We all realise that what makes a car of advantage to one particular party is that the agent sends it to the known voters to fetch them. It is those known voters who, you know, will support you, who are the valuable people you get with the car. That is why everyone attaches great importance to cars at election times. The mere fact that great importance is attached to cars shows, I think, that it is not because of general utility to the halt, the lame and the blind, but because each of the parties
    2248
    thinks that the cars are going to advantage them so far as the poll is concerned.
    Let me turn to the particular proposal of the Noble Lord and point out that the suggestion to arrange the numbers by polling districts is wholly illogical. If the Noble Lord will examine the last lists of election expenditure, which give the number of polling districts in each constituency, he will see that they are completely without logic as regards numbers. In the Division of Sparkbrook, with 47,000 voters, there are 47 polling districts. In the east, south and west divisions of Leicestershire, with electorates of 54,000, 53,000 and 52,000 respectively. There are four, seven and eight polling districts respectively. The result of this arrangement will be that for East Leicester you will allow 16 cars, and for the Sparkbrook Division 188 cars to each candidate. I am sure that the Noble Lord will not suggest such a result as that, although I appreciate the fact that he thinks logic is debarred in regard to these arrangements.
    If the Noble Lord will look through the list he will find a number of such cases there. Take, for instance, the constituency of East Middlesbrough, with 44 polling districts and an electorate of 36,000, or Morpeth with 26 polling districts and 35,000 electors. It is quite irrational that one of these constituencies should be allowed twice as many cars as the other. The rational way to arrange this is to say that as regards the county districts they want twice as many as the boroughs, and that is what we suggest in our Amendment. As a rough guide, both in regard to counties and boroughs, population is the best, and everyone will agree that, except in very exceptional cases, such as large county areas, where there might be some reason for asking for special treatment, the criterion of population is a perfectly good one to adopt. I suggest that the House should not adopt this proposal, but should accept the Amendment which is down in the name of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
    Sir SAMUEL HOARE: The Solicitor-General has such great Parliamentary talents, which we have been quick to recognise in the short time he has been in the House, that I was deeply grieved to hear him supporting so benighted and

    2249
    futile a proposal as that put forward by the Government. With his great talents he is defending the kind of action which would still make a man walk with a red flag in front of a car, which would still set its face against every modern development and which on the same principle would oppose the mechanisation of the Army and the use of any new methods in our daily and public life. He admitted that we want to get as many voters to the poll as possible and the great difficulty there is in doing so. It has become so great in some countries that they have had recourse to a system of compulsory voting. We have no means of raising that question on this Bill, but it is a significant fact that the bigger the constituency the more difficult it is to get voters to vote.
    In view of that, I should have thought that it was to the advantage of everyone, no matter to what party they belong, that we should make the fullest use of every scientific and technical development which will make it easier—not more difficult—for voters to vote. The more voters there are, the more cars you should have actually working in the constituency. I support the Amendment, not because it restricts the number of cars, but because it makes the restriction less than does the Government proposal. My own position is clear. I should like to see no restrictions at all, because it is in the public interests to have as many cars working on election day as possible. The reason is obvious. An hon. Member for a county constituency has pointed out the great difficulty of getting country voters to the poll where the distances are very great, and I notice that there is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of an hon. Member below the Gangway to exclude altogether from the scope of this restriction some of the bigger country districts.
    The difficulty, however, is not confined to the country districts. Take the case of an urban constituency. At first sight there may appear to be no difficulty at all, that everybody can vote quite easily, but the difficulty in urban constituencies is that of the removals, and it has become extremely formidable owing to the recent increase in the electorate. Take my own case, Chelsea, which has probably fewer removals than many other constituencies. Even in
    2250
    Chelsea there are as many as 5,000 removals every year out of an electorate of about 45,000. Most of these removals are to some distance from the borough, and they are out-voters who have left Chelsea, as they have done in large numbers in recent years, in order to live in the county council estates outside the county boundary. To cope with that problem and to make it possible for these large number of voters to vote, it is absolutely essential to have a large number of cars at the disposal of the various candidates. I am certain that the effect of the proposal of the Government—not of the Amendment, because my right hon. Friend excludes London seats altogether—would certainly be to disfranchise a large number of London voters.
    What justification have we had for this proposal? The Solictor-General tried to make it appear that he was merely carrying on a practice which already exists; that he was applying the law of the hackney carriage to the more modern forms of transport. I hesitate to enter upon a controversy with the Solicitor-General on a point like that, but I really do not believe it is the case. If he will look into the history of the various Illegal and Corrupt Practices Acts, he will find that the reason for restricting the use of hackney carriages was totally different. It was not to hold a balance as between the two parties, but to prevent a secret form of bribery being carried on. If hon. Members will look at the accounts given to the Royal Commission which inquired into corrupt practices at the time of the great Reform Act, they will find that it was frequently the case that an account appeared in the candidate's expenses of £5,000 for ribbons or £5,000 for hackney carriages. The reason for restricting the use of hackney carriages was not to hold the balance between the parties, but rather to restrict an admitted form of corrupt practice.
    My Noble Friend in his Amendment takes the polling district as the unit of calculation rather than population. The Solicitor-General criticised that proposal on the ground that the number of polling districts varied as between one constituency and another. That certainly is the case, but it is obvious that it is a much fairer proposal than that of the

    2251
    Government which makes no distinction between one county constituency and another, no distinction between a county division and a suburban constituency in which there are no great distances, and in which there are also various means of communication at the disposal of the elector, and a constituency like the Orkney and Shetlands or a constituency in some remote part where the distances are very great. I have in mind the case of one of the Scottish constituencies where, I am told, unless there is at the disposal of the candidate something like 500 cars, a large number of the electors will be disfranchised. I cannot see any justification whatever for the restriction of cars upon any basis, and, moreover, any attempt to restrict the number of cars is going to be very difficult to enforce. The Solicitor-General has told us that the owner will still be allowed to use his car for himself and those living with him under his own roof. At the same time, there will be a limited number of registered cars. Who is going to enforce the distinction as between these cars'? When hundreds of cars are going backwards and forwards, how is this proposal to be enforced?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The right hon. Member appreciates the fact that there is a provision by which all cars registered have to bear a visible registration mark, which shows that they are so registered.
    Sir S. HOARE: That may be the case in regard to a limited number of cars, but there will be a large number of privately-owned cars constantly moving backwards and forwards, and short of prohibiting the use of cars altogether on election days there is going to be complete confusion. Meanwhile, the wretched candidate and his agent are liable to be prosecuted for illegal practices and fined £100, with a period of imprisonment if any owner of a private car takes a mother-in-law instead of a mother to the poll, or whatever may be the dividing line as to the members of the family he is allowed to take and those he is not allowed to take, or if he takes the gardener, for instance, where he ought only to have taken the butler. Furthermore, the candidate will be liable for any offences in the use of the registered
    2252
    cars. How is it to be known which are the registered cars? The Solicitor-General says that they are to bear a distinguishing mark, but how are you going to know that that distinguishing mark is not transferred from one car to another?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I presume that the distinguishing mark will bear the registration number of the car, and it will therefore be possible to see whether the distinguishing mark corresponds with the number of the car.
    Sir S. HOARE: All this seems to show that it will be necessary to have an immense number of inspectors of various kinds at every street-corner to stop every car and look minutely at its number and its distinguishing badge, and, in the case of privately-owned cars, to ask the questions which we discussed during the Committee stage, as to the relationship of the various people in the car. All this is not for the purpose, of doing the State any good. It is not for the purpose of making it easier for voters to vote, but is simply for the purpose of "doing in" the Conservative party and for no other purpose at all. It cannot be suggested that anybody is going to be better of for this restriction on cars. It is going to make it more difficult for people to vote and the only possible reason which can be urged for it by hon. Members opposite is that it will put the Conservatives at a disadvantage, to some extent, as compared with their position in the past. In view of that fact it seems to me to be wasting the time of this House and prostituting the talents of right hon. and hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench to ask us to pass so benighted a proposal, a proposal so utterly out of touch with modern life and development, simply and solely for a petty and vindictive party advantage.
    Mr. DENMAN: It is always a pleasure to hear the Conservative party defending its long-enjoyed privileges. We had an instructive Debate yesterday when they were doing their best to retain the plural vote. It is true that in the course of that Debate we were assured that this was not a privilege at all and that we on this side were under a complete delusion in supposing that the scales were in any way weighted in favour of the non-manual worker and in favour of those

    2253
    who control with and who enjoy more than one vote. To-day in connection with this proposal for limiting cars, we are charged with loading the dice in our own favour—a singularly ingenuous point of view. I fail to see how an equal number of cars in a constituency can favour us as against anybody else. Then we are told that we are reactionary because we are flying in the face of scientific development and endeavouring to make people walk when the modern scientists would wish them to fly. I observe, by the way, that there is no limitation on the use of aeroplanes. All this, of course, does not deceive us. It does not delude us into the idea that there is not a real advantage to the Conservative party in the present condition of things and that it constitutes a real weighting of the constitutional and Parliamentary scales against this party, which we are doing our best to redress.
    I agree that no scheme can be perfectly satisfactory but I suggest that any scheme which the people at large will accept as being broadly just, has a real and fundamental advantage over any scheme which is obviously weighted in favour of one party. So long as people believe that Parliamentary institutions are weighted on one side, so long will there be a degree of indignation and that is not a good foundation for political thought. I make one suggestion to the Solicitor-General, to try if possible to meet the charge that we are being heavy-handed in this matter and are reducing the use of cars to one level and standard which may not be equally appropriate in the different circumstances of different constituencies. It is perfectly true, as has been said from the other side, that the growing development in the use of motor transport will produce very different conditions, perhaps within a limited number of years. It may be that in five years' time this problem will wear a very different aspect. An Amendment on the lines which I have in mind would not be appropriate until a later stage but I suggest precise words which would give the desired elasticity and would at the same time be perfectly just. I merely wish to show one method of meeting the real point put from the other side, namely, that there is a lack of elasticity and I suggest that at the end of paragraph (5) of the Amendment which stands later on the Paper in the
    2254
    name of the Home Secretary, to this Sub-section, there should be added the words:
    "Provided that a higher scale may be adopted at any election where the election agents and the candidates agree thereto in writing."
    I think there will be cases in which, by universal agreement, it would be desirable to have a higher scale than is here suggested. Take the recent by-election at Scarborough for instance. I imagine that in that case both candidates would have been glad to have had a higher scale. That is only one example. The same thing may be true of many other constituencies. But I hope that we shall not attempt to meet the charge of lack of elasticity in the way suggested in the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) who wishes to exclude the largest county constituencies from this limiting factor, because that means that the grievance remains just in those areas where it is most felt—in the largest areas where the distances which voters would have to walk are longest. I take county constituencies in the North with which I am most familiar. To say that, there, the unrestricted use of cars should remain whereas in places like Carlisle and Newcastle these restrictions should apply is an undesirable solution. I believe that on this side we all agree with the principles of restricting cars in some way so as to bring about fairness and equality between the different parties. I believe it will also be agreed that we want to make this a workable proposal and not any kind of pedantic scheme. I believe that in principle the scheme of the Home Secretary is just and is not pedantic but I suggest that the degree of elasticity which would be secured by the words which I have indicated, would allow the local people and the candidates concerned to adjust this scale and to vary it, in agreement, so as to suit the local needs and the needs of a particular election.
    Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Two objections have been raised to the present system during this Debate. One objection was raised by the Solicitor-General, namely, that the Tories had too many cars and consequently took too many voters to the poll. The other objection which was voiced by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lang) was that the

    2255
    Tories had too many cars and, as a result, had too big a display at election time. Those two objections are not the same and I wish to deal, first, with the objection that the Conservative party, having too many cars, are able to bring too many voters to the poll. If the Government have their way they want, by this Bill, to cut down the number of cars which are in future to be allocated to the Conservative party, with the object of preventing a certain number of Conservatives from going to the poll.
    I can understand the desire on the part of hon. Members opposite to try to win elections if they can, but I would point out that at the last General Election the polls were quite high. I think I am right in saying that they were between 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. on an average, and, in my constituency the poll was 91.3 per cent. of the whole electorate. That does not look as if my Socialist opponent was very badly handicapped or was not able to bring his supporters to the poll. I think if we take the country as a whole it will be found that the percentage voting was quite high and consequently that there is no call for this suggested restriction. The Solicitor-General said he did not think that, to be taken to the poll in a motor car, should be an inducement to the elector to vote. I rather agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not see why anybody should require to be bribed by a ride in a motor car to go to the poll, but I see no reason why, if a voter lives a long way from the polling station where he desires to vote, a motor car should not be available to take him to that polling station. I consider that the vote is not only a privilege but a duty. I think that people should record their votes and that instead of trying to restrict the number of people who go to the poll we ought to encourage a larger number to go to the poll. We are certainly not going to do so by this Sub-section which we are now considering.
    As to the objection of the hon. Member for Oldham, be said he did not think it fair that the Conservatives should have such a large number of cars to display their party colours, but I would point out that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent a constituency being flooded with
    2256
    motor cars bearing all sorts of posters and so forth as long as they do not take people to the poll. So far as that objection is concerned, it does not hold any water at all, because under this Bill people can use their cars for display purposes as long as they do not use them for conveying people to the poll. Then there is the point that was made by my Noble Friend on the Front Bench, that the Labour party have a very great advantage, as far as display is concerned, in the fact that they can get a large number of window displays where supporters of the Conservative party feel that they do not like to have window displays. There is quite a large number of people who object and feel that they do not like to use their colours in that way, and I think that the Socialist party will admit that they have quite an advantage in that respect.
    I want to examine Sub-section (2) of Clause 5, because I feel that it is quite unworkable. It says in effect that any person who so desires may register his vehicle with the returning officer, that any vehicle so registered shall be allotted by the returning officer for use in such manner as he thinks desirable, and that any vehicles so allotted shall be used for the purposes to which they are allotted. What would happen? First of all, there would be a squabble between the election agent and the returning officer, because one agent would say, "Why should that agent have a Rolls-Royce and I have only a Ford? Why should you allocate that particular car to his part of the constituency and only give me a smaller car?" But that is not the main objection, which is that these cars, according to this Subsection, have to be allocated to special duties.
    Take my own constituency, for an example. I might have a car allocated for a duty some 20 or 30 miles from my biggest town, and I might have another car allocated for duty in one town which was three miles from another town. What is going to happen if the car which is allocated to a certain area gets into another area? It is quite possible in a large constituency that cars might have to take people from one part of the constituency to another, and I do not think it will be possible to enforce the suggestions contained in this Sub-section. It would be practically impossible to make

    2257
    absolutely certain that the cars which were allocated to one particular series of streets, we will say, in a borough did not go into another series of streets in the same borough, because the returning officer is the person who is to allocate them to a specific area, and if cars go out of that area, which they might very easily do, and do duty in another area, there is an offence committed against this Subsection. There would be endless prosecutions as a result of that kind of thing.
    I think the suggestion which has been made in the Amendment is far better. If you are going to have the cars for election purposes, it is very much better that those cars should be allocated to the actual political agents in the areas, who should be allowed to do what they like with them. If you give the cars to an agent, he can allocate his number of cars to the places where he thinks it necessary to have them, but if the returning officer has to do that and to say, "You must put a car in one place and another car in another place," and so on, it seems to me absolutely impossible, because you can never enforce it. I think that the Amendment which has been suggested by my Noble Friend is a very much better one, because it actually hands over the control, as it were, of the cars to the agent instead of leaving it in the hands of the returning officer, and at the same time they are allocated in numbers according to the polling districts. That is much fairer than allocating them purely according to population, because the bigger and the more widely spread the population, the bigger the number of polling booths, and consequently the greater the necessity for a larger number of cars.
    The real object of all these suggestions of the Government is quite easy to see. It is that the numbers of voters who are taken to the poll in the agricultural areas shall be cut down. In the towns it does not matter, because there it is considered that the Socialist party have a preponderating poll. Consequently the voters can go to the poll on foot, but in the agricultural areas, where it is considered that the Conservative party have a certain strength, it is suggested that very few cars shall be available, so as to cry to disfranchise as many as possible of the Conservative electors as against the Socialist electors. I do not think anybody could deny that that is the object
    2258
    of this Clause. It is so palpable that everybody can see it. Everybody realises that the big, wide areas are the areas where the cars are required, and those are just the areas where the cars will not be available, if this Clause is carried.
    The suggestion that anybody who wanted to give a car for election purposes should put his car into a pool of cars and that those cars should be used, not on party lines at all, but should be allocated, as in this Clause, by the returning officer, means that there will hardly be any motor cars at all at the election, because people will not give their cars to be allocated to their opponents. Certainly I should not give mine to my Socialist opponents—I should not dream of it—and that is what the answer would be and that is what the Government want. The Government want the number of cars to be restricted. They want the number of the electors going to the poll to be reduced, because they are frightened of the electors, and they do not want these people to exercise this franchise. It is obvious what their object is. They want to restrict and prevent the electors from having au opportunity of exercising the franchise against themselves, and that is why they have brought in this Clause. I hope that when the time comes for the Division, we shall have the support not only of our own party, but of the Liberal party as well.
    Sir JAMES SEXTON: I do not intend to detain the House very long in what I have to say in a few, I hope, on the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, well chosen words. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite do not seem to have chosen their words very well. What are their arguments'? First of all, there is the point raised about long distances and the necessity of bringing the lame, the blind, and the halt to the poll. I have no objection to that. It is a very necessary element in an election, but that is not our complaint. I think the case was very pertinently put by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Lang). It is the use of a fleet of cars, during a by-election particularly, when they continue to wander up and down the street. In fact, they park their cars in the streets the whole day of the election, using what I would call not peaceful

    2259
    peruasion but peaceful intimidation. I speak from painful personal experience. It is not a question of the lame, the halt and the blind so much as one of pestering people in their houses, with the ears at the doorstep, who sometimes do not need cars but in desperation to be rid of the nuisance at last consent to take a ride.
    The last speaker said that our only interest is to prevent people going to the poll to vote against ourselves. I want to be perfectly frank and candid and to remind him and those who think with him that it does not always turn out as they anticipate, because I have known instances where electors have taken the car and voted for the other fellow, so that I warn hon. and right hon. Members opposite on that score that their alleged generosity is wasted on the political desert air.
    There is one point to which I wish to call attention with regret. While I am certainly prepared to give support to this Bill in all its particulars, to me there is one weakness in it, and that is, first of all, that it is locking the garage door when the car has gone by fixing the penalty after the deed is done. Speaking from my own experience—and I have had in my time a good many of what in the Labour movement we used to call moral victories—it is open to any party or party agent, even under the existing law, to hire vehicles ad lib. As a matter of fact—open confession is good for the soul—I have done it myself in one Liverpool election. I was not caught at it, of course, but I have done it, and it can be done to-day. Not very long ago in Liverpool during an election that I fought, chars-a-banc and motor omnibuses were hired by my opponent—
    Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Did he return the expense?
    6.0 p.m.
    Sir J. SEXTON: No. I assume, after the manner of most political aspirants, that that item was conveniently left out. I complained on the spot, but the only satisfaction I got was that the returning officer shrugged his shoulders and said, "I admit that it is against the law, but you must take the initiative yourself, and you must issue your complaint after the election is over. It cannot be stopped
    2260
    except by a court of summary jurisdiction." That is the weak point in legislation of this kind. You allow a fellow to commit a crime, and you summon him after he has done it.
    Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON: Does the hon. Member suggest that the proceedings should be taken before the man has committed the crime?
    Sir J. SEXTON: No, but when he is doing it you cannot stop him and proceedings are not taken until the election is over. Prevention is better than cure. That is my point. The penalties under this Bill are so infinitesimal, that I can very well imagine a candidate, particularly a Conservative candidate with plenty of cars, defying the law and paying the penalties after the election is over. In such case we are no better off than before.
    Lord ERSKINE: I do not think that anybody could devise a way whereby you could prosecute a man before he has committed a crime, particularly in election law, because there are a multitude of offences against the law at elections which cannot possibly be brought home to the man who committed them until after the polling day. Therefore, I do not think that the suggestion of the hon. Member for St. Helens (Sir J. Sexton) was very practicable. I would like to deal with the remarks of the Solicitor-General. The hon. and learned Gentleman appears to be the maid-of-all-work for the Government. He always turns up when there is any difficulty, and we on this side think that on the whole he does extremely well. I do not think that his efforts to-day, however, were really equal to the occasion. He started his speech by remarking that he knew that there were great distances in the country, that he lived in the country himself, and that he knew of a great many people in villages who were quite accustomed to walking four or five miles. He practically said, why should they not do it if they want to vote at elections? Is it really the intention of hon. Members opposite to make people walk when there are conveyances which can take them? If that really be their contention, this Clause will not be very well received in the country districts.
    The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lang) said that the whole situation had

    2261
    been completely changed because there were now omnibuses. I would like to remind the hon. Member that omnibuses do not take the people along the roads free, that in the agricultural areas wages unfortunately are very low and of late have been getting lower, and that people in the villages think two or three times before they spend money on omnibuses at election or any other time. Why you should force an agricultural labourer and his wife to pay for an omnibus when they may be fetched free, I do not really understand. The Solicitor-General made some remarks about hiring, and he was dealt with very truly by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare). In the days when the hiring of commercial vehicles was prohibited, it was not because one individual got more help by hiring as against another, but the electorate was very much smaller and a candidate got a real advantage if he hired all the cabs in the town, probably at a very exorbitant price, and covered them with ribbons and other things. The Solicitor-General will agree with me that the reason cabs were prohibited was not that they gave an unfair advantage to the individual hiring them, from the point of view of taking voters to the poll, but because they gave a corrupt advantage in that the particular candidate was able to get the votes of the cabbies and to cover the town with a large amount of blue or red colours. The Solicitor-General will agree that the arguments he used in that connection were not on all fours with the arguments put forward against motor cars.
    I understand that it will be a corrupt practice if any illegality is committed under this Clause. Undoubtedly, a large number of illegalities will quite unwittingly be committed on every side by every party and in every constituency if this Clause goes through. People get lifts from one place to another every day, and they will get lifts from one place to another on polling day, and nothing that this House can do will stop it. But suppose a person gets a lift to the polling station, a technical illegality will have been committed. It is not an illegality over which any candidate can have control, and I suppose that to get a conviction and to unseat a candidate under this Clause it will be necessary to prove that the candidate knew and
    2262
    encouraged the individual who picked the voter up to take him to the polling station. If that is not the case, every Member who is returned will be liable to be unseated.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) gave a great many reasons in regard to removals to show that it would be much more difficult in future to get voters to the poll if this Clause were passed. He said that owing to the vote being given to the younger women, there are very many more removals than there were before, and that in his experience, even before a new register had come into force, the removals in his constituency were something like 10 per cent. He hesitated to think how large a number it would be if an election occurred at this time of the year. That is an argument which has not up to now been brought forward in these debates, and it reinforces our demand that we should be able to convey voters to the poll, because the main purpose of an election is to get the population to vote. The hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) said he got 91 per cent. of his electors. That is really all the available people who can vote after allowing for voters who have died or are ill. I am certain that if this Clause were to pass. I should get 20 per cent. fewer people in my division to go to the poll than I get now. No one can say that that is a good thing, and I am sure that if we have a provision like this, we shall have to enact some form of compulsory vote.
    I would like to reinforce some of the examples given by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford of the great distances that have to be covered in the countryside. I would like to take an instance from the county of Somerset, because, although it is not my Division, it is very near to it. In the Taunton Division of Somerset is the polling district Brompton Regis, which has an area of 9,029 acres, and, as the crow flies, you can take a straight line of six miles across the parish. There are 400 electors. Some of the electors would have to walk four or four and a-half miles to record their votes. Many of them from the hamlet of Bury would have to climb up the hill the better part of three miles. My informant says that he expects that only about half of the population would vote

    2263
    if somebody was not able to fetch them in a vehicle.
    The hon. Member for Oldham said that the answer to the proposal was to have more polling districts. Various people have tried to get more polling districts; I have tried myself, but what is the answer of the county councils? They say that it will incur a great deal of expense, that they are responsible for the ratepayers' money, and that they do not believe that additional polling stations are necessary. I have here a case from the polling district of Topsham, in the Tiverton Division of Devonshire. In that case, a demand was made some time ago, signed by 200 electors, for a separate polling station in Countess Wear, as it was three and a-half miles from some parts of Countess Wear to the polling station at Topsham. The answer of the county council was to the effect that all elections taking place on one day, it was very difficult to find competent officials to man the present polling stations, and also that each polling district cost a good deal of money for officials, fees and fittings; and that the county council had been so pressed for economy that they did not see their way to spend more money on additional polling stations.
    One could go through a great list of cases, which are not at all rare, of distances all over the countryside where, if this Clause goes through, a large proportion of the population in those areas will not be able to vote. I am sure that that is not a good thing. We should not encourage the people of this country not to vote; indeed, we should do everything in our power to sec that they exercise their franchise. This has been a very different type of Debate from those we had on the Committee stage, and to some extent on Second Reading. Hon. Members on the other side of the House, as they mostly represent borough constituencies, at that time did not appear to have very much idea of the difficulties in the counties. It seems that to-day we have been able to convince hon. Members that this proposition is not so easy as it seems. Even the Government have come off their original high horse, and have produced an Amendment which goes some way to meet our views, although the number of cars which are there allowed is totally inadequate. I ask the
    2264
    Government to go one step further. They have already said that their first proposals were quite unworkable, and they have gone some way to meet ours. The right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) has put down an Amendment that this Clause shall not apply to constituencies of over 400 square miles. I do not know how many divisions in the country will be over 400 square miles—
    Sir DONALD MACLEAN: About 50.
    Lord ERSKINE: Even then it would be a very arbitrary distinction. There are a number which are just under and which have the same kind of difficulties, and the right hon. Gentleman's proposal would be unfair to other divisions. I hope that before the Debate finishes we shall be able to show to the House that this Clause is unworkable. You cannot really fly into the face of progress. Motor cars are becoming more spread among the whole population. I wonder whether hon. Members realise what they are doing by this Amendment. They will allow everyone who has a car to ride in it to the poll and to take the members of his household, but what about the farmer, who up to now has taken his farm labourers and their wives to the poll? They do not live with him, they live in cottages some way off. We shall allow the farmer, his wife and daughter, and perhaps the maid, to go in the car to the poll but the farm labourers and their wives will have to walk. If that is their idea of helping the Socialist vote I do not think the party opposite will have much chance in the agricultural areas.
    I hope that it will be proved that this Clause is unworkable. It has been brought forward, as has been said by every Member on this side, in a sort of punitive expedition against the Tory party. All parties have some advantages inherent in their constitutions. It may be said that we have an advantage in motor cars; the Socialist party have an advantage in the trade unions; and in the old days the Liberal party had an advantage in the chapels—I do not say that offensively. Probably every party has had and will have advantages and disadvantages of that kind. We cannot legislate against all inequalities, any more than we can make all men equal. In the past when one party got into

    2265
    power they cut off the heads of their opponents. Afterwards, when we became more civilised, it was the fashion for the successful party to impeach the leaders of the other party. By long experience the Liberal party and ourselves have come to the conclusion that that game is not worth the candle, and we have dropped it for a long time. Now it has been revived by the Labour party. This Bill is purely a punitive expedition, a revival of practices which have long been proved to hit both sides. Hon. Members opposite do not suppose that they tan keep us out of power for ever, any more than we suppose that we can keep them out for ever, and if they are going to start this kind of punitive expedition they must remember that there are many things we in turn can do to them.
    Captain CAZALET: The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) put forward an extraordinary and fantastic argument against this Amendment He said, "Here are the Tories once again claiming their privileges." We learn for the first time that it is presumed to be a privilege for one to vote for the Conservatives, though, no doubt, it is regarded as one's bounden duty to vote for the Socialist party. We believe it to be the duty of every citizen to record his vote in whatever way may seem right to him, and that we ought to do everything we can to provide every opportunity and every convenience for voting. Whereas in Australia they have under consideration proposals to impose a penalty upon people who do not vote, in this country a Measure is brought forward by the Socialist Government which is going to prevent people from recording their votes. I do not want to join issue with the Solicitor-General on the question of what is or is not logic, but he claimed that this Amendment was not logical.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Not sensible.
    Captain CAZALET: He used the word "logical," now he substitutes the word "sensible." It does not follow that because a thing is not sensible it cannot be logical. He has missed the point. I thought the illustration he gave showed how logical and sensible the
    2266
    Amendment. This Amendment proposes to bring into relation the number of motor cars that may be made available with the number of polling stations provided. The hon. and learned Gentleman quoted the case of Leicester, and said that in one area there were only three or four polling stations and in another area 20 or 30. Surely it is the case that the area where there are few polling stations is a congested area and people have not far to go to the poll, and that in the case where the polling stations are more numerous the population is scattered over large distances. Therefore, the Amendment of my Noble Friend is not only a very sensible one but a very logical one.
    I have never been able to understand the attitude of the Government upon this Clause and upon this Amendment. If they believe in democracy, about which they talk so much, they would surely support any proposal which would assist individuals to exercise the vote. I do not believe that any really conscientious Socialist would like to be returned to this House if he felt that his success were due to the inability of certain of his opponents to get to the poll. I can almost imagine a really high-minded Socialist who was returned by a narrow majority, and heard afterwards that certain of his opponents in his constituency could not record their votes because there were not motor cars, resigning his seat and offering to fight again. If, as an hon. Member opposite said, what they really object to is a fleet of cars touring a constituency to exercise a psychological effect on the way people will vote, why have they not brought forward a Clause to prevent that particular thing? I do not think I should object to that. A car which is lent for such a parade nearly always gets damaged, and I would not oppose any suggestion to make processions of motor cars touring a constituency illegal. But, of course, the objection to this Amendment is not a high moral one, it is a low, unmoral one. I will not say an immoral one, because I do not wish to accuse hon. Members opposite of immorality. I will say it is a non-moral one. It only carries out the basic principle of every Clause in the Bill, and that is an attempt to "do in" the Tories.
    Mr. SANDHAM: Hear, hear!
    Captain CAZALET: I am very glad to have that added confirmation of our suspicions. We ought to thank the hon. Member opposite who let us know for certain that many Conservative cars have in the past carried Socialist voters to the poll. We had suspected it on many occasions, and we are glad to get the confirmation. In addition to this being a non-moral principle I would warn hon. Members that it is a, dangerous principle, and that it may be made to work both ways. At some future time some high-spirited Members on these benches, who may then be sitting on the opposite side of the House, will urge Measures of a similar character to this directed against the other side, and though, of course, the Conservative party as a whole would never agree to them, it is a principle that can be made to apply both ways. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Trade Disputes Bill?"] I do not think I should be in order in discussing that now, but in our view no suggestions of party bias on our part could be founded upon that Measure.
    My own objection to this Clause is that it increases the opportunity for committing offences. Already, if the law were applied strictly at election times almost every Member in this House would be unseated. Further, it is impossible to check all the individual actions of one's constituents. How is one to be responsible for the actions of every constituent who owns a car? As the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) said, this Clause will penalise out-voters, will disfranchise them. I think every Member must recollect how often he is told when visiting houses in his constituency that one member of the household will be outside the district on polling day. The number of people who have to be fetched from outlying districts is surprising. Then there is the point that people will not know the law in this matter; though, of course, ignorance of the law is no excuse. There will be a large number of people who will send their cars for individuals in order that they may vote at a certain polling booth. How is one to judge what is the primary object of a visit? What can prevent me from Bending my car to fetch a daughter to see her mother? Surely that would be a worthy object. It may happen that the day of the visit
    2268
    coincides with the day on which an election is taking place. How can one say what is the primary object of the visit? The car may not drive right up to the polling booth, but stop a little way away. Who can tell whether the individual who comes out of the car and records his or her vote is or is not a relation of the person who owns the car, lives in his house, or belongs to the household? Of course, one cannot tell; and it would be especially difficult to tell if it were someone living outside the district and not known to local people. Then there is this further difficulty: how can one say which way that individual has voted? I can foresee that there will be innumerable difficulties for the returning officer, the magistrates or whoever has to decide who is in the right or wrong. I am perfectly certain that when hon. Members opposite fully realise the low motives which inspire this Clause and the futility of it in practice they will regret opposing the Amendment and supporting the Clause.
    Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: I should not have risen but for the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford City (Captain Bourne). In that excellent speech he referred to a part of the country in which he spent a great deal of his time, and with the difficulties of voters in that area getting to the poll. I happen to represent that area, and I desire to say that I support to the full every word he said on that point. A certain Member of Parliament came into the constituency to speak for me. He was met at Hereford and driven to the place where the particular function was taking place, and he congratulated me, through the driver, on the fact that there were so few people and no villages in my constituency. The driver said "But you have already passed through three of them." What he had seen is typical of many country villages—the houses are so scattered that one does not realise that it is a village.
    The issue in this Amendment is a very simple one. The question is whether the number of cars should be allotted in proportion to the number of voters on the register or in proportion to the number of polling stations. I would like the Home Secretary to take note of a typical case among rural areas. I have in my

    2269
    own constituency 90 polling stations, and 140 parishes and villages. Under the scheme proposed in the Bill I shall be allotted 31 cars, or about one car for every three polling stations. The agricultural worker is at work from the early hours in the morning until six o'clock in the evening, and the only time he is able to vote is between six and eight o'clock in the evening. As a rule he lives four or five miles away from the polling station. How is it possible that one car for every three polling districts will be able to convey the electors in those districts to the poll? It is absolutely impossible, and I make a very earnest appeal to the Home Secretary to accept the number provided for in the Amendment, and to allot the cars in proportion to the polling stations instead of in proportion to the electors on the register.
    The effect of the Bill will be to disfranchise agricultural areas to a large extent, and it will chiefly disfranchise the older men and women. Many of the young people have motor cycles and bicycles, and they may overcome the difficulty of getting to the poll, but the older ones are not in that position. This proposal is supported by hon. Members opposite in order to disfranchise the people. It is said that every boy and girl under the age of 20 who was not a Socialist has no heart. Let them bear in mind if that is true it is also true that every man and woman above the age of 25 or 30 has no head if he still remains a Socialist. Hon. Members opposite by this proposal are disfranchising the older people, and depriving those who have the wisdom which age gives them of the right to record their vote. I appeal to the Home Secretary to consider the rural areas, and to consider the old people and let us have a definite number of cars in proportion to the polling stations.
    Mr. MANDER: Some Members of the Opposition who have spoken in this Debate have tried to intimidate us by the terrible revenge which they threaten to carry out when they are returned to power. That is a contingency so remote that it is hardly worth taking into consideration, and it may well be that the present generation will pass away before we have the advantages of another Conservative Administration. I will devote myself to the principle which is involved and surely it is no new
    2270
    principle. We are simply endeavouring to see that no undue advantages accrue to wealth in the exercise of the franchise and the electoral law. We have already removed the last vestige of plural voting. We have tried to prevent bribery which was an advantage to wealth, and we have done that with general consent. It is well known that it is illegal to make use of wealth to provide all the motor cars that can be hired. Motor cars cannot be hired for election purposes; otherwise, there would be great advantages accruing to the people who have the money. By this Bill we are only taking steps to go a little further along the same path by limiting the advantages which wealth gives in the transport of electors to the poll.
    It may well be that there will be great difficulties in carrying this Clause into effect during the General Election, but that is no reason why we should not adopt it, and even if it is only a deterrent, making people feel that the law is there and that they will disobey it at their peril, it is bound to have a very considerable effect. When we come to the actual method by which this new idea is being carried out, I agree that there are many possible ways of dealing with it. Personally, I think the Amendment before the House goes too far, and allows far too many motor cars for industrial and county constituencies. The Amendment of the Home Secretary allows far too many cars in industrial constituencies. I think this is a perfectly sound Clause to put into the Bill and will do something to give greater equality of opportunity to the electors whether they are rich or poor.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I desire to point out the very serious results which this Clause will have—I know it will be a very serious matter—in a Highland constituency such as I have the honour to represent. In the first place, the distances from the polling stations in the Highlands are very much greater than in other constituencies. I know one instance where the polling station is eight, nine, and even 15 miles from the residences of voters, and there are no motor omnibuses on the roads along which many of these people have to travel. I know another instance where voters have to go 16 miles to the polling station, and there is no motor omnibus

    2271
    between those voters' residences and the polling station. I think those instances show what a very serious question is raised by these proposals in scattered Highland constituencies.
    We have heard something about the special disability which will be imposed on old people in scattered outlying districts, although the young people with motor bicycles and bicyles will not be inconvenienced in this respect. May I point out that in the Highlands the situation is worse, because there are very few young people, and the population, particularly in the more isolated rural districts in the Highlands, consists largely of old people. In those districts, very often the land is very poor and the young people go to work in the towns, or probably they have gone to one of our Dominions. There are innumerable cases of old people living on a little farm or in a little cottage, and these are the people who will be faced with an extreme difficulty in getting to the poll unless they can be taken there by a friend who possesses a motor car. There are few omnibuses running along the roads which these people have to travel, and, if a private car cannot fetch them, it will be impossible for them to record their votes. Therefore, this Clause means the disfranchisement of a very large proportion of the rural voters in the Highlands.
    With regard to the number of cars that are needed at an election, I have 42 polling districts in my constituency. I have been advised that about five cars to a polling station is the least number with which one can hope to bring a substantial number of my supporters to the poll. I have been fortunate in having a considerably larger number of cars than that, and the number which has been mentioned by my Noble Friend is not more than will be necessary for a constituency like mine for a candidate who has to rely very largely for support from the rural areas. If a large majority of those areas are represented by one party it means that that party is supported by a considerable number of people in the outlying districts, and therefore it needs cars because people cannot get to the poll unless motor cars are available.
    A man offers his car because he knows there are many people in the outlying districts who would not get to the poll at
    2272
    all unless he sends his car. I do not suggest that the people who lend their cars refuse to bring anybody but their own supporters to the poll. No election in which I have taken part has passed without my being told that many people who have supported my opponents have been brought to the poll in cars which had been lent to me. There is a great deal of give and take in that matter. I say emphatically that I want to see every possible voter brought to the poll. I do not care how he votes. Naturally, I want to see people brought to the poll in the first instance on whose support I can count, but I want to feel that everyone has an opportunity of recording his vote, and it is intolerable to me to think that, after 100 years during which the franchise has been steadily extended, after 40 years during which the rural worker has had the benefit of the franchise, and after 12 years during which women have been admitted to the vote, we have to-day in a Bill this Clause which will largely disfranchise the rural voter, and particularly the old voter.
    It is very gratifying to-day to find the increasing interest in public affairs that is being taken by women all over the country. It is a matter of extraordinary interest to anyone whose lot it is to address political meetings to find that a steadily growing interest in public matters is being taken by women who a few years ago were not interesting themselves in these matters, and, in particular, by the older women; and it seems to me to be nothing short of cruel, when this great new interest, this great new responsibility has been given to the women of the country, that a Government Bill should now be brought forward to dash the cup from their lips and make it practically impossible for a very large proportion of them ever to record their votes.
    Finally, I would point out that the organising of cars in a big constituency is a very difficult matter. I am advised that, next to what the candidate can do, the organisation of cars is the most important matter. It is a matter for which I always try to select the most expert supporters that I can find, and some of them do it in a way in which I could never hope to do it myself. I do not think that the same efficient organisation is possible if it is done by a returning officer; you want someone

    2273
    rather in the nature of a staff officer, accustomed to organising things on a fairly big scale. It is work which not even an election agent need do very efficiently. If the organisation of cars in a big constituency is to be in the hands of a returning officer, it seems to me to be very doubtful if it can be done as efficiently as it would be if the different candidates were at liberty to select the most efficient and suitable person for the purpose.
    Therefore, I say that this Clause really means the wiping out of political interest and of the discharge of political responsibility in the rural areas, and more particularly in areas such as that which I represent. Accordingly, I am glad to support the Amendment of my Noble Friend, because from my own experience I think that the number of cars which he suggests for each polling district is not a bit too much, and because it offers a chance for the organisation of cars to be efficient, and puts forward the very important principle of allotting cars by polling districts and not merely according to number of population. Owing to the distribution of the population, that is an all-important point. If cars were to be allotted on the basis of population, I should not be entitled to more than 34 in my constituency, whereas, as I have said, 200 is comething like a minimum requirement. This Clause really seems to me to be cruel, in that it takes away a right and privilege that is increasingly appreciated and increasingly exercised, and, therefore, I strongly support the Amendment.
    Mr. McKINLAY: There is one point that seems to have escaped the attention of hon. Members opposite. I am quite ready to admit that there may be something to be said for this Amendment. Nobody on this side of the House desires to prevent aged people from going to the poll, nor do we desire to impose a hardship on people who live in the countryside; but I want to repudiate the suggestion which is made from the other side that, because most Members on this side represent industrial constituencies, we are callously ignorant of what the countryside really means, and of what it is to move and have one's being in the countryside. One question that I have not heard mentioned is, not so much the use of the motor car, but the log-
    2274
    rolling interests that supply constituencies with motor cars for the purpose of sinking the chances of a particular candidate. Although I am not a betting man, I am willing to lay a bet that in my constituency the liquor trade will supply all the cars necessary to my Tory opponent at the next General Election, simply because we make war on that particular interest.
    The Leader of the Opposition gave an example of log-rolling in North Padding-ton. Just imagine what happens in industrial, not to mention rural, constituencies. You have the Fellowship of Freedom and Reform; you have the True Temperance League; you have all the affiliated and subsidised organisations of the liquor trade, quite disinterestedly and on behalf of the umpire, lending motor cars to support the candidate who will best represent that interest in the House of Commons. It is useless at this time of day for anyone to suggest that the primary motive of having motor cars in elections is to secure that every possible elector will go to the poll.
    Every measure suggested from this side of the House is a punitive expedition against the Tory party, but everything which comes from hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they sit on this side of the House, is for the benefit of an erring democracy. They desire to do everything for our good. But take the case of the Labour candidate who contested Inverness at the last election. He was faced with a fleet of 300 cars supplied by a Tory organisation on behalf of the Liberal candidate in a constituency covering hundreds of square miles, while his total muster was 10. Most of those cars which were opposed to him were supplied by interests opposed to the Labour party, and, while we on this side of the House have no desire to prevent the legitimate use of conveyances, either in rural or in industrial areas, for people who cannot otherwise go to the poll, surely it is a satire on that enthusiasm for the development of the Empire which hon. Members opposite are continually telling us is the drive behind the Conservative party, that even an Empire Crusader will not walk two miles to the poll. Consequently, I am more concerned about the interests behind the supply of these cars.

    2275
    Let me give an illustration which tells against my own party, because I want to be perfectly fair. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will remember the North Lanark by-election, where the bookmakers all over Scotland concentrated and sent motor cars into the constituency for the purpose of showing that they resented something which the Tory Government had done. The same thing happened in North Midlothian, and also in North Paddington, where there was a battle of wealth as to which side could supply the most motor cars—on behalf of particular interests, not on behalf of the electors. I suggest that the Noble Lord should withdraw his Amendment and frame an Amendment which would meet with acceptance on both sides of the House.
    I want it to be clearly understood that the rank and file of the Labour party are not opposed to supplying reasonable means of conveyance to people who otherwise cannot get to the poll because of age or infirmity, but I certainly repudiate the suggestion of the Noble Lady the Member for Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) that for the people who reside in Perthshire five cars are necessary for each of 42 polling stations. I think that it is a satire on the intelligence and enthusiasm of Scottish people to suggest that they will not support their candidate with sufficient enthusiasm to walk to the poll.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: May I ask the hon. Member, is he willing to see an old lady walk eight, nine, 15 or 16 miles to the poll?
    Mr. McKINLAY: No; I have already said so. But the Noble Lady cannot convince me that a reasonable percentage of those who want to be conveyed to the poll belong to that category.
    Sir THOMAS INSKIP: At what age does the hon. Gentleman call a person an old lady? When would he compel her to walk?
    Mr. McKINLAY: I say quite frankly that sometimes it is very difficult to recognise an old lady, even by her dress. [Interruption.]
    Sir T. INSKIP: What is the answer?
    Mr. McKINLAY: That is the answer. I will give a further illustration, which happened in Glasgow at the last General
    2276
    Election. We have already disposed of the question of plural voting, which was a punitive expedition against the Labour party, but on that occasion a fleet of motor cars was delivering the same voters in three or four different constituencies in Glasgow, and bringing them a distance of 25 miles—young, able-bodied people. In fact, an allegation was made that the only living things that did not vote in Glasgow on that occasion were the saithes round about Helensburgh Pier. Motor cars were used to bring in all those plural voters. I hope that the Government will stick to the Clause, and I suggest that the Noble Lord should withdraw his Amendment and frame one which will meet with acceptance on both sides.
    Mr. OLIVER STANLEY: The House has listened with some pleasure to the frank speech of the hon. Member for Par-tick (Mr. McKinlay). He alluded to the case in which bookmakers joined with the party opposite in an association which I think it is only right to say was equally painful for them and for the bookmakers, but I do not think that hon. Members on this side, in the Amendments that they move and in the stand that they take in regard to this Bill, have any desire to perpetuate a system whereby outside interests may, on behalf of one party or another, bring an enormous fleet of motors into a constituency, as was done on that occasion. We are, however, anxious that no hardships or difficulties should be put in the way of men or women in the matter or recording their votes. The cheap jest that there cannot be much enthusiasm behind the Members of a party who cannot walk two miles to the poll and two miles back does not really add much to the arguments on the Bill. To start with, why should a man be made to walk four miles to prove his allegiance to a political party? Are the depths of a man's political allegiance to be tested by a certain number of athletic performances? Has every man to run 100 yards or jump 20 feet before he can be said to be fit morally or intellectually to record his vote?
    7.0 p.m.
    It is not only the distance to which we object, although the distances in the case of my constituency are far greater than two miles there and two miles back. It is the time that is occupied in the journey. All of us who are acquainted

    2277
    with country districts—and no doubt it is the same in towns—know quite well that it is the habit among the working class for the wife, although it would be perfectly possible for her to vote during the day, to wait until the evening, when her husband comes back from work. Then they go down together to record their votes. In my constituency, without motor cars, it is quite possible that a great number of people may have to walk four or five miles there and four or five miles back, over bad roads, up and down hill, and may have to leave their house, their children, and their domestic preparations for two or three hours in the evening. However sincere their convictions and their political thought, however much they may want to vote for a Conservative or a Socialist candidate, you are in fact putting them to an intolerable hardship when you demand that they should undertake that journey.
    Really, I believe the grievance, under which hon. Members opposite suffer and which I fully understand, is not a justifiable one as far as the country constituencies are concerned. The hon. Member referred to an election in Inverness and to the enormous disparity between the number of care which were available for the Socialist candidate and for the Liberal candidate, who had all the advantages which that party enjoys. The hon. Member will agree with (me that in normal country constituencies—I cannot speak for Inverness—the part of the population, which is likely to vote Socialist, is much more closely concentrated round the place where the polling booths are found than the part of the population which votes Liberal or Conservative. In constituencies such as mine, the chief support for the Socialist candidate is to be found either in the small towns or in the villages among such people as the railway workers, who necessarily live in or near the village where the polling booth is situated. There is, therefore, not nearly so much need for a number of cars as in my case, in which a large number of my supporters are drawn from people who live in the fells at great distances from the villages.
    With all the faults and fallacies in the argument of the hon. Member opposite, I prefer his speech to that of the hon. Member for East Wolverhamption (Mr.
    2278
    Mander). The hon. Member was frank and stripped the matter to bare bones; he did not dress it up with talk about equality. I was frankly impressed by his arguments and interested in his statements. I was interested when the hon. Member said that it would be many years, a generation perhaps, before hon. Members on this side of the House who uttered threats would have an opportunity of putting them into effect. I presume then that the hon. Member has had indicated to him the date of the next election. It is, therefore, interesting to know that the bill of lading is going to be very much out of date.
    The argument that the matter we are discussing now, the use of motor cars in elections, is on all fours with the principle of one man one vote or universal suffrage, and that both are an attempt to sweep away electoral privileges given by wealth or education is ridiculous. Here every man has a vote, and it is simply a question of the facilities to exercise that vote. If you are going to say that a man who is allowed to use a car is being given an undue advantage over a man who is not, then you must say that a man who lives a 100 yards from a polling booth has an undue advantage over the man four miles away, and that you must do away with it. There is here no question of undue advantage at all, and, if principle there be, it is a principle, which has been clearly shown by hon. Members on these benches and far more by hon. Members opposite—
    Mr. MANDER: Is the hon. Member therefore in favour of candidates being allowed to hire motor cars in order that everyone may have the opportunity of going to vote?
    Mr. STANLEY: Frankly, one can only argue against that proposal on the ground that hiring a motor car in your constituency may act as some kind of inducement to the man from whom you hire it. If it were not for that, I should have no objection to it. The Noble Lord for Horsham (Earl Winterton) opened the Debate on his Amendment in a perfectly admirable speech. I quarrel with him in one respect only, and it is a complaint I have often to make about him. I am full of admiration and respect for his eloquence and his argument, but I do disagree with the undue meekness of his speeches and

    2279
    his over-readiness to take the motives of hon. Members opposite at their face value. I cannot agree with him when he says that he does not believe that the Solicitor-General is bringing this forward with the idea of dishing the Tory party.
    Earl WINTERTON: I am exceedingly grateful to the hon. Member for his compliment. I did not put it quite like that. I said that we had no reason to believe.
    Mr. STANLEY: I am very grateful to the Noble Lord. I have no doubt as to the motives which support this proposal, and we need not therefore discuss this principle. What we have to discuss is the difference between the Amendment of the Noble Lord and the Amendment of the Home Secretary and decide the number of cars to be given to the candidate. We all know they may have a number of cars irrespective of wealth. Under the Home Secretary's proposal, it will be possible for the Conservative party to have 40 cars and the Socialist party 20 cars, and the inequalities of wealth are to continue. We can only discuss now on what basis these inequalities are to be granted. I was unfortunately unable to be present when the Solicitor-General made his reply on that Amendment. I have no doubt that I would have heard not a convincing argument but an intellectual exhibition. He has, during his long years of practice at the Chancery Bar, learned the art of destructive criticism of the case of the other man. His argument is, "It is quite true that some people may live three or four miles from a polling booth. Let them walk." It is reminiscent of some of his friends and colleagues, who some years ago said, "Let London walk." Let us consider who are the people whom the Solicitor-General wants to walk. The poor man must walk and the man who has not a car or whose master will not give him a lift, but the rich man in his Rolls Royce, the man with a Ford, the man with the motor bicycle, they can all exercise the privilege which is always given to wealth in this country and save themselves the trouble and expense to which their poorer brothers will be put. That is hardly a convincing reply to our case.
    The whole question is whether the flat rates proposed, which are laid down in the Home Secretary's Amendment, will
    2280
    really meet the special circumstances in each case, or whether they would not give to some constituencies many fewer cars than they require and to other constituencies many more. We contend that our basis, the basis of the polling district, gives a much fairer estimate of the requirements of the district. In my constituency, for instance, I have something like 45 polling stations and an area of over 800 square miles, so that there is between 15 and 20 square miles for each polling district, a large number of which are in a very hilly country on the borders of the lakes and difficult of access. Under the Home Secretary's proposal, I should receive 42 cars for 45 polling districts and I should be able to allocate rather under one car for every 15 square miles. Although it is quite true I might, with the use of those cars, be able to get the sick and old to the poll, I go further than that.
    I do not base my case on the necessity of getting them. I say that your limit should be fixed so as to give everyone who lives a long distance from the poll the opportunity to come in, and I believe that the Amendment of the Noble Lord will give a very much fairer distribution of cars than is proposed by the Home Secretary. So much as to the principle—if principle there ever was in this Clause. Let them proceed on that to adopt the logical basis and find a formula which will deprive no one of the necessary facilities of travelling in a motor car and at the same time will put a stop to displays, such as those of which the hon. Member spoke, which it is not the desire of any party in this House to maintain.
    Mr. TOOLE: As the hon. Member responsible for moving the Resolution referred to, I want to disabuse the minds of hon. Members opposite of any idea that it was moved with any intention of aiming at any particular party. What I aimed at was a more equitable distribution of cars. I pointed out that, during the last 25 years, during which the motor car has been developed for electioneering purposes, every party has done the same thing. It is not fair for this side of the House to assume that the advantages of motor cars are always with the other side of the House. In one by-election, in which an hon. Member said he was carrying the relics of the Labour movement,

    2281
    there were more motor cars produced than I have ever seen in any Tory by-election.
    Of course, things have changed. No one would tell the House that he should have an advantage at the election because he is a rich man. In those days, 1925, five years ago, we allowed rich people to carry the relics of this party and to have a tremendous advantage over the rest of the candidates of the party. In ancient times, when they paraded their relics they used to place them on the back of an ass, and he used to walk through the main streets in the procession and people used to come out and salaam to the relics. The ass got the impression that he was the centre of at-traction, and he got so cocksure that the festival committee decided to change the ass. Still believing that he was the centre of attraction, he had a procession of his own, and was surprised to find that no one took the slightest notice of him and that wealth really did not count, but that what did count was the relics. In our ease what counted were the relics of a great party.
    Mr. STANLEY: I do not quite know what the hon. Member means by the relics of his party.
    Mr. TOOLE: I did not really expect the hon. Member to know anything. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] I am rather hard of hearing, and I intend to be until I finish. One of my first impressions when I visited London 25 years ago was a huge poster in Aldwych exhibited by Horatio Bottomley. It was a picture of the Derby race, and, with Bottomley's usual modesty, he was riding the winner. At the tail end of a long string of horses came Keir Hardie on a donkey marked Socialism. In order to get the donkey even to come in last, Keir Hardie was dangling a carrot over its head. Other people have held bunches of carrots over peoples' heads for many years. I only mention that to emphasise the change there has been since those days. Anyone would think, to hear the speeches from the other side, that we were trying to uproot the British Constitution.
    I do not see any reason to waste all this time debating how many motor cars we shall have in elections. It is quite a simple matter. It is a fact, particularly in by-elections, that the man who has a
    2282
    great fleet of cars, especially on a wet day, has a tremendous advantage over a candidate who has not. This Clause is intended to equalise the advantage. I have not the slightest objection to the aged and infirm having the best facilities possible—that is why I moved my Motion—and we must all admit, because it is not a party question, that there is a distinct difference between agricultural and urban districts. I would make everyone who lives in a town or city who has two legs and is fit walk to the poll. We pamper people too much these days. I do not see any reason why people should expect, when they go to vote, to get a ride in a car. After all the vote costs a lot. [Interruption.] I can understand that you over there always think in terms of cash. I am speaking in terms of sacrifice. A vote is a very valuable thing, and a man ought to be only too proud to walk to use it. During the last 25 years, in my district in particular, people expect a ride before they go to vote, and invariably the man who gives them the ride is the man who gets the vote. There is such a great opinion of honesty among working folk that they do not generally use one person's car and vote for someone else. Between 10 in the morning and mid-day canvassers come to the committee rooms demanding cars and stating that Mrs. So and So will not vote unless she is brought in a car.
    In the towns we could very well do with an arrangement, like they have in Oldham, to have no cars at all except for the sick and the infirm. In country districts it is different. There ought to be the very best facilities for people in agricultural districts getting to the poll, and I quite agree that they should have twice the facilities of those who live in the towns. The Home Secretary has provided for that in his Amendment. Taking a constituency with an average of 40,000 electors, which I think is a fair statement of the case, if the Amendment was carried, with 40 polling stations candidates could have 200 cars. That is far too many for anyone to have, and it would occur again that the rich candidate would have 200 cars and the poor one very few. In an urban district, on the basis of the Home Secretary's proposal, they would have 20 cars. That is plenty for anyone. It appears

    2283
    to me that that is a fair arrangement and distribution of cars.
    Let us not assume that everyone who owns a car is delighted to send it to the candidate. If this is carried, there are thousands of people who own cars who would be only too glad to be relieved of the opportunity of sending them. I had a remarkable experience with the first car lent to me. A man lent me a Ford car. He brought it at eight o'clock in the morning, at five minutes past eight it ran into a wall, and at half-past 10 I got a bill for £5 for damages. That, however, is not the reason why I am against cars. This proposal is only made to equalise the distribution of cars. It is quite a modern development. There have been so many changes in the last quarter of a century that there ought to be a change in the use of motor cars. When I first went into politics, every public house was a Tory Committee room. That has been stopped. [Interruption.] I only look at them from the outside. I dare say the hon. Member has a knowledge of the inside. Voting was restricted to certain special sections of the community. That has been changed. Thanks to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin), everyone now has a vote at 21. The one crying evil which has been allowed to arise in our midst is the motor car evil. I look to that being changed to-night. You could not have a fairer proportion of cars than one for each 2,000 of the urban population and one for each thousand of the rural population, but what does it matter what the numbers are if they are equal all round, and why object if they are equal. No one gets an advantage over anyone else. Everyone has the same proportion. For these reasons, I support the Government Amendment.
    Sir T. INSKIP: The House has enjoyed the hon. Member's speech, but I am sure it would have foregone the pleasure of hearing him if we could have induced someone on the Government Bench to defend their proposals after the criticisms that have been made upon them. The Solicitor-General has a capacity for courtesy which never fails him, but he must guard against his besetting sin of being a little perfunctory in his treatment of some of the questions that
    2284
    come before the House. After all, this is a somewhat serious question, and the only answer we have had from the Government—indeed, it was not an answer—was a speech of some 10 or 12 minutes from the hon. and learned Gentleman, in which, naturally, he was not eager to anticipate the criticisms which have been made by my hon. Friends behind me, and here, when we are altering an important part of electoral law, the Home Secretary has not even the courtesy to the House to attend our Debate during the very short time that we are allowed to discuss the Bill under the Guillotine. There might possibly be some excuse for his behaviour if we were working under a time-table which would strain his strength and patience to the utmost, but the Debate is bound to come to an end at an early hour. My hon. Friends behind me have put questions which the Solicitor-General is now, of course, powerless to answer, owing to the Rules of Debate. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is here. Why should not he be unchained to answer some of these questions? I have seen his genial countenance looming above the table during the whole Debate. I think my efforts will not be altogether wasted if I have induced the Home Secretary to condescend to give a little attention to the discussion of a Bill which has been presented by him on a subject upon which he proposes to move a Clause in a few minutes.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): Where have you been all the day?
    Sir T. INSKIP: I have been in this House since a quarter to six. I have been here a great deal longer than the Home Secretary has. But I think he is a little wanting in his habitual courtesy when he suggests that even my absence is an excuse for his absence. It is not my Bill. Would he inform me what right he has to ask me where I have been? He will not succeed in riding off with a taunt of that character, and the House will expect him, I think properly, to be here to defend the proposals contained in his own Bill even if any Member of the Opposition finds it necessary to be absent during part, or even the whole, of the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman's absence has been matched by the torpidity of the benches behind.

    2285
    The hon. Member for Partick (Mr. McKinlay) made some observations chiefly devoted to the suggestion that the liquor traffic supports a party on this side of the House. [Interruption.] The hon. Member reminds me that we have not a monopoly of the liquor traffic even on this side. I resent with all the fervour at my command the suggestion that we have any particular privileges in connection with motor cars because of the liquor trade. If I may speak for myself—I believe I am much in the same position as others on this side of the House—my opinions on some questions connected with that traffic deprive me of whatever support it might have been able to give me. I say that not in any derogation of the rights, or powers, or opinions of any Member on this side of the House. It is a sheer piece of hypocrisy for hon. Members opposite to pretend that they are the only righteous and temperate people in the world. If it comes to making accusations of that sort, I see one or two hon. Members on the opposite side of the House who know a great deal more about the liquor traffic than I do.
    Let us try and understand the basis upon which this calculation of the Home Secretary, to which we shall come later is based, and which, I understand, I shall be in order in discussing in passing. We are told by the hon. Gentleman opposite that one car for every thousand in the country constituencies is quite enough for everybody. I should like to know—perhaps the Home Secretary now that he is here can answer this question, if he is good enough to make a reply—if this calculation is based upon the needs of the electors, or upon the present-day capacity of the Socialist party to produce motor cars? I will put it in another way is the calculation of one car per thousand intended to produce equality as between political parties, or is it designed in the interests of electors, as it is supposed to be—to get all the electors who want to vote to the poll! That what we should like to ask. As the Labour party secures the support of the wealthy people who are rapidly being attracted the longer the Labour Government remains in power to its ranks, we may assume, I suppose, if equality is the objective of the Home Secretary's Clause, that one car per
    2286
    thousand will be increased to two cars per thousand, because in order to produce equality it will only be necessary to limit cars to that extent. But really if you approach this question from the point of view of the equality of political parties you are degrading this House and political parties altogether.
    The object of this House ought not to be to make parties equal as if we were playing a game in regard to which we ought to make rules in order to make it a sporting contest, but our efforts, surely, ought to be directed towards getting as many people as possible to the poll. It is not equality that is wanted in this contest; it is efficiency that is wanted. Instead of forbidding wealth to assist in getting people to the poll, instead of making it difficult for wealth to get people to the poll, you ought to beg wealth and enlist wealth to get people to the poll. It is possible that if the Government, instead of baldheadedly trying to deprive the Conservative party of some advantage which we frankly admit we possess, were anxious, on the other hand, to get the electors to the poll, they might have coupled their proposals with some relaxation of the power of hiring vehicles. They might, for instance, have made it possible in these days of large motor vehicles to arrange for some system under which it would be possible to provide transport to the poll on a large, scale for the electors from distant places.
    The right hon. Gentleman has not gone as far as that. No, his object is not to get people to the poll. His object is to prevent people from going to the poll on one condition—if they are likely to vote Conservative. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last exhibited a characteristic disdain for the people whom hon. Gentlemen opposite are fond of claiming that they particularly represent. I wonder whether the working-class will relish the slander which was passed upon them this evening when it was said that they are content to vote and will only vote for the people who give them a ride. Is there anything quite so discreditable as that belief of hon. Members opposite? Do they really tell this House and the country that the working classes are so shallow in their convictions and so elastic in their attachment to convictions that because somebody offers them a ride in large numbers to the poll they will

    2287
    vote for the Conservative party? Are the convictions of our great working class of this country so shallow as to make it possible to change their political convictions by five minutes in a vehicle which is no longer a novelty or even a luxury. Let it be said at the next General Election when hon. Members are addressing large public meetings that they have told you, Mr. Speaker, and the country, through the House of Commons, that if you talk of convictions, they have not any because they are prepared to surrender their convictions for a ride in a motor car for five minutes.
    Mr. TOOLE: Who suggested it?
    HON. MEMBERS: You said it.
    Mr. TOOLE: What I did say was, that there were many working class people who would not go to vote unless they had a ride.
    HON. MEMBERS: No!
    Sir T. INSKIP: I am quite content to leave the hon. Gentleman to correct his recollection by the OFFICIAL EEPOKT to-morrow, but let me say this, in criticism of his correction, that, if he only said that, and he meant that it was an insignificant minority of the working class, the observation was not worth making.
    Mr. TOOLE: That is what I said. It was what I said and not whether the observation was worth making.
    Sir T. INSKIP: We heard it, and my recollection is at least as good as the hon. Member's recollection of what he said. It really does not matter, because the opinion which the hon. Member, I think, did express in the terms I have stated, is really that which underlies the proposal of the Government to limit the use of motor cars. It depends upon the theory that there is in some way an unfair advantage because of the Conservative party are likely to have more motor cars at their disposal than other people. If it is an unfair advantage, it can only be unfair for one of two reasons. One reason is because the people who get the rides in the Conservative motor cars will vote Conservative. I believe that to be a slander of the working class and of the people of this country, and I am astonished that anybody should even think of it for a moment, let alone ex-
    2288
    press it in the House of Commons. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh. It is their customary resort. They are not fond of producing arguments, but they are fond of laughing. The only other advantage which can be obtained by the use of motor cars is the fact that those who want to vote Conservative can be got to the poll in larger numbers than those who want to vote Socialist. I should think that if that is the criticism—I agree to some extent it may be properly considered—the real objective of the right hon. Gentleman should not have been to make it difficult for Conservatives to get to the poll—the Conservatives with convictions—but to make it easy for the Socialists with convictions to get to the poll. Then you would produce a real equality.
    This sterilising of the voters in order to produce supposed equality between political parties comes very late indeed in the development of modern democracy. I do not believe that, if this Clause gets into an Act of Parliament, it will long be tolerated. It will either become a dead letter for the reason mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Lord Erskine) that you cannot prevent people from getting lifts, or else it will be repealed by some Government, and I should not be surprised if it was a Socialist Government. [Interruption.] Yes, I should not be surprised if it was a Socialist Government that repealed this Clause if it gets into the Bill in the form in which it is suggested by the Home Secretary. We are told by hon. Members who have spoken that there is no reason at all why everybody should not go to the poll walking. If they have opinions worth mentioning, we are told that they will walk and that they ought to walk and should be made to walk. If that is so with all Socialist voters, what is the harm in letting some of them ride? Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. If they tell us everybody can quite properly walk to the poll except the very aged or very infirm, we are not seeking to deprive any Socialist of that which hon. Members tell us they can do arid will do. They can walk to the poll. What is the harm in saying that some people should be offered rides to the poll? If the right hon. Gentleman and the Solicitor-General will give a little more

    2289
    attention to these proposals, I venture to think that, instead of the perfunctory and the shallow idea that you have improved your democracy by making it difficult for people to vote, they will come to the conclusion that they ought to withdraw this Clause and go back and think again and not make it more difficult for Conservatives to vote, but devise some means to make it easier for Socialists to match the enthusiasm of hon. Members on this side of the House.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: I think that it is almost incredible that the Secretary of State for the Home Department is not going to make any reply. We have had innumerable speeches from this side of the House, powerful, lucid and cogent speeches filled with devastating arguments, to which no attempt has been made to reply on the other side of the House. The Secretary of State for the Home Department has thought fit to be absent for the greater part of the Debate although we are discussing a crucial Clause which he himself has presented to the House. He came into the Chamber, I think, largely owing to certain pressure from this side of the House. He has listened to an extremely able denunciation of his Amendment and Clause by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip), and he sits there as if he is prepared to allow the Question to be put without making any attempt to reply for the Government.
    Mr. CLYNES: My momentary absence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Momentary!"]—appears to be a matter of interest to some who are now present. May I, therefore, state that I have been in the House since half-past two, and for nearly the whole of that time I have been in the Chamber? I was here until 10 minutes to seven. A man must live, even a Home Secretary. With the exception of some 15 minutes for Departmental work, I have not been absent from the Chamber, and I have listened attentively to all the speeches. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General stated the case for the Government on the subject of the Amendment, and I intended to speak, as I hope I shall, a little later on the new Clause on the Paper in my name. Frankly, apart from the explanation given about my absence, I cannot think of anything in the speech
    2290
    of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down to which I need reply.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Everybody is prepared to make allowances for the temporary absence of the right hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I made no attack. What I am complaining about is not that the right hon. Gentleman went away for a short time, but that we are deprived of hearing the views of the right hon. Gentleman upon this very important Amendment. I expected, after listening to the speeches from this side of the House, that the right hon. Gentleman would at once have got up and accepted the Amendment. We have heard no arguments against the Amendment, and every speech to which I have listened—and I have been here for a long time—has been a very strong argument in favour of the Amendment. All that we want from the right hon. Gentleman—and I think it is a very justifiable request—is, if he is not going to accept the Amendment, that he should state the reasons of the Government for not doing so. The Solicitor-General stated the views of the Government before the very large number of speeches were delivered from this side of the House. Surely, it makes a mockery of Debate. This House is held in sufficient contempt at the present time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, and it is the fault primarily of hon. and right hon. Members opposite, who have brought forward Bill after Bill for the last two years designed solely to waste the time of the House of Commons and to prevent us from doing the business that we ought to be doing, trying to solve problems of importance. We waste our time day after day and week after week on a Measure which everyone knows perfectly well is never going to become an Act of Parliament.
    As the Home Secretary does not intend to reply, I should like to say a few words in support of what was said by the hon. Member for West Perth (Duchess of Atholl) regarding the rural areas of Scotland, which have not been dealt with particularly in relation to the Clause or the Amendment. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman what steps he is going to take or what steps the Government are going to take to see that voters in Inverness-shire, the Western Isles, and Orkney and Shetland in particular, get to the polling stations. I stood as a

    2291
    candidate for Orkney and Shetland in 1923 and I have some personal experience of the enormous difficulty which the voters have in getting to the poll in these Highland and Island constituencies. There are not any trains and but very few motor cars are available. It is necessary to get every possible means of transport. It does not matter which party produces them, so long as they are produced, if the people in these areas are not to be disfranchised.
    The hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Toole) denies that he made the statement, but he did say, I listened very carefully, that some voters would only vote if they got a ride. He developed his argument and said that out of a sense of honesty they felt bound to vote for the party that gave them the ride. I am sure that that statement will be found in the OFFICIAL KEPORT tomorrow. I do not know much about the voters in England, but that is not the Scottish conception. The working classes of Scotland hold quite different views. They are very independent. They vote as they think right, but they do not necessarily tell you how they are going to vote and they do not necessarily vote for the man whose car takes them to the poll. I have noticed that in my constituency, at any rate on two occasions, on polling day. There was a very celebrated Aberdeenshire bridegroom who became very uneasy as the bride was being led up the aisle. The best man said to him: "What is the matter, Sandy? Have you lost the wedding ring?" "No," said Sandy, "but I seem to have lost my enthusiasm." I have noticed in regard to some people whom I assumed confidently to be my supporters, that when they approached the polling booth in my car their enthusiasm for the Unionist cause diminished. I am by no means confident that they voted for the party to which I belong. But I did not care, so long as they got there. The point is to get everybody to the poll.
    If the Home Secretary had come to the House with a proposal to get more potential Labour voters to the poll, so long as it was a practicable proposition, even if it involved hiring a charabanc or some other vehicle of that kind, we should have listened very sympathetically to it. We have no objection to people
    2292
    going to the poll or being brought to the poll, but we do object to people being stopped from going to the poll. That is our fundamental objection to the Clause, and the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. Hon. Members opposite have said that such and such a number of cars is far too many. That is the expression they use in arguing in favour of the Clause. How can you have far too many cars at an election? You cannot get enough cars. Our objection to the Clause and the Amendment is (1) the practical one that it will not work and (2) the question of principle, that it is designed to prevent a certain number of people from going to the poll or having facilities of going to the poll, with the clearly vindictive motive that they would be likely to vote for the Conservative party as against the Labour party. The ironical fact is that it will not prevent a single well-to-do, rich, comfortably-off person from going to the poll in his own car, any distance, in ease and comfort, but it will prevent the aged, the sick, the poorest of the poor who cannot be expected, especially in the conditions under which they are living, to walk eight, 10 or 15 miles to the poll, and back.
    Mr. SULLIVAN: I rise to protest against the statement of the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby), deriding his own countrymen. He seems to have a penchant for running down his countrymen. He stated to the House, amidst the cheers of his supporters, that the Scottish idea of honesty is to go in one man's motor car to the poll and to vote for someone else. I sincerely hope that the hon. Member will make that statement when he goes back to Scotland. It is not the first time that he has made a statement of that kind, deriding his countrymen.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: I venture to say that it is generally understood in rural constituencies in Scotland that any voter is perfectly entitled to vote as he chooses when he gets to the polling booth. We always make that perfectly plain. Send cars for your own voters, if you can, but there is no obligation on a voter to vote for the party that takes him to the poll.
    Mr. SULLIVAN: The hon. Member has not withdrawn the statement reflecting upon his own countrymen. I once

    2293
    stood as candidate in a country area, and all the cars that I could get on any day numbered three. My opponent could get 200 or 300 cars. I know of one case of a man, 74 years of age, who was going to be sent in a Conservative car, but he said that he had altered his mind and, although he was a lifelong Conservative, he was going to vote Labour. He walked four miles each way to and from the polling station to record his vote against the Tory. The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire seems to think that it is a good thing to make cheap jokes at the expense of his fellow countrymen. [Interruption.] I do not want to run counter to the feelings of hon. Members opposite, but I would remind them that they can read the speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. I protest against it on behalf of the Scottish people, and I hope that he will repeat it when he goes to Scotland.
    Mr. J. JONES: To-night we have had one of the most magnificent exhibitions of hypocrisy that I have ever seen in this House. Hon. Members on the Conservative benches, almost with tears in their voices, have been expressing their anxiety to see people recording their votes. The whole history of politics in this country is proof that whenever any attempt has been made to give the people the right to have a vote, the party opposite have voted against it. Now, knowing that the workers have the vote, their game is to see how they can wangle so that they may get their votes. Motor cars play a very important part in an election. They send motor cars down to my constituency, and I use them. I am not worrying my head about motor cars because, frankly, I tell my supporters to go in the Tory car, but vote Labour. I am not one of those high falutin' people who talk morality, knowing that the other fellow is practising the other thing. Hon. Members opposite have been practising the other thing all their political lives, from father to son, exercising every possible influence and intimidation to prevent people from voting. [Interruption.] Yes, and throwing people out of their jobs. Now they tell us that they are the Simon Pures of politics, and that their only interest is to get people to the poll. Yes, and to put them up the pole!
    2294
    We want a square deal, even in the use of vehicles. I would like to see the day when the cost of vehicles at election times is made a public charge, in order to get every section of the electorate to the poll. That would be an easier way out of the difficulty. Our people in many cases will not walk to the poll but will have a ride, because it is the only time that they can get a ride at the expense of the other side. The dock labourers of Silvertown will go in the motor car of the other side, and they will cheer the Labour candidate as they are going to the polling station. I wish the electors in all parts of the country would do the same thing, and then hon. Members opposite would stop providing motor cars. When they know that they are not going to get the reward of the working man's vote, they will stop providing motor cars for him. I hope that some day motor cars will be provided under the public authority and that all parties will have to pay an equal share towards the cost of cars for the election day. Then, all parties will stand on terms of equality, and the present system of a party using its wealth to get electors to the poll will die, as it ought to have died years ago.
    Virtuous indignation about the action of the Government, coming from gentlemen who have lived the vice in this particular respect all their lives and who, according to their speeches, will do it in the future, and all this pretended morality, leaves me cold. I fear the Greeks when they bring gifts. The party opposite have voted against every democratic proposal and against every extension of the franchise, until they have discovered that they could not hold back any longer. They have sometimes failed to learn the lesson until after the revolution has begun, and then they have surrendered when they could not do otherwise. They are trying to do the same thing now. I hope that the Home Secretary will stick to his guns, and we will go into the Lobby behind him. We want some little sense of equality in these matters. We intend that the poorer candidate shall not be handicapped. Some rich men have come into our party, and some of them will go out as quickly as they have come in. They cannot come into our party and buy it. If we discover that they are trying that game, out they will go, and we shall not be cere-

    2295
    monious in our methods. Members of the Conservative party to-day are simply trying to cover their past misdeeds by their pretence of virtue.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'persons' in line 38, stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 236; Noes, 152.

    Division No. 260.]

    AYES.

    [8.0 p.m.

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

    Harbord, A.

    Naylor, T. E.

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

    Hardie, George D.

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Harris, Percy A.

    Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

    Haycock, A. W.

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hayday, Arthur

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Angell, Sir Norman

    Hayes, John Henry

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

    Arnott, John

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

    Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Palin, John Henry.

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

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

    Paling, Wilfrid

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Herriotts, J.

    Palmer, E. T.

    Barr, James

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Perry, S. F.

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

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

    Phillips, Dr. Marion

    Benson, G.

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Jones, Llewellyn-, F.

    Potts, John S.

    Birkett, W. Norman

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

    Price, M. P.

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Pybus, Percy John

    Bowen, J. W.

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Bromley, J.

    Kinley, J.

    Raynes, W. R.

    Brooke, W.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Brothers, M.

    Lang, Gordon

    Ritson, J.

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

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Romeril, H. G.

    Buchanan, G.

    Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Burgess, F. G.

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Rowson, Guy

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

    Law, A. (Rossendale)

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Caine, Hall-, Derwent

    Leach, W.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cameron, A. G

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

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

    Cape, Thomas

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

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

    Lees, J.

    Sanders, W. S.

    Chater, Daniel

    Leonard, W.

    Sandham, E.

    Church, Major A. G.

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Clarke, J. S.

    Lindley, Fred W.

    Scott James

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Scurr, John

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Sexton, Sir James

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Longden, F.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Cove, William G.

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Lunn, William

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Daggar, George

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Shinwell, E.

    Dallas, George

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Dalton, Hugh

    McElwee, A.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    McEntee, V. L.

    Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    McKinlay, A.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Duncan, Charles

    McShane, John James

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Ede, James Chuter

    Malone, C. L Estrange (N'thampton)

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Edge, Sir William

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Manning, E. L.

    Sorensen, R.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Mansfield, W.

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    March, S.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Elmley, Viscount

    Marcus, M.

    Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

    Foot, Isaac

    Markham, S. F.

    Strauss, G. R.

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

    Marley, J.

    Sullivan, J.

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

    Marshall, Fred

    Sutton, J. E.

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

    Mathers, George

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Matters, L. W.

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

    Gill, T. H.

    Messer, Fred

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Gossling, A. G.

    Middleton, G.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Gould, F.

    Millar, J. D.

    Toole, Joseph

    Gray, Milner

    Mills, J. E.

    Townend, A. E.

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

    Milner, Major J.

    Vaughan, David

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Montague, Frederick

    Viant, S. P.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

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

    Walker, J.

    Groves, Thomas E.

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

    Wallace, H. W.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Watkins, F. C.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Mort, D. L.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

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

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Murnin, Hugh

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

    West, F. R.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    Weitwood, Joseph

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    White, H. G.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Mr. Thurtle and Mr. Charleton.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

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

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    Albery, Irving James

    Duckworth, G. A. V.

    Peake, Captain Osbert

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

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Penny, Sir George

    Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Party, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Aske, Sir Robert

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

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Atkinson, C.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Renter, John R.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

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

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y).

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Beaumont, M. W.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Rothschild, J. de

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

    Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

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

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Sevan, S. J. (Holborn)

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Savery, S. S.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Boyce, Leslie

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Simms, Major-General J.

    Bracken, B.

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

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Briscoe, Richard George

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

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Broadbent, Colonel J.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Somervilie, D. G. (Willesden, East)

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

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Inksip, Sir Thomas

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Buchan, John

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

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

    Butler, R. A.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

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

    Campbell, E. T.

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

    Thompson, Luke

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

    Thomson, Sir F.

    Castle Stewart, Earl of

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Thomson, Mitchell- Rt. Hon. Sir W.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

    Tinne, J. A.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Llewellin, Major J. J.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

    Lockwood, Captain J. H.

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Lymington, viscount

    Turton, Robert Hugh

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

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyan

    Christie, J. A.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Mailer, R. J.

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Calville, Major D. J.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

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

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Morris, Rhys Hopkins

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

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

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Muirhead, A. J.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

    O'Connor, T. J.

    Major Sir George Hennessy and Sir Victor Warrender

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    Mr. CLYNES: I beg to move, in page 3, line 38, after the word "poll," to insert the words "on behalf of a candidate."
    This is the first of two Amendments in my name, and I presume that the discussion will take place on both at the same time. I would remind the House that the discussion of this subject, the use of motor cars in elections, did not begin with the introduction of this Bill. In December of last year, on the Motion of a private Member, the House condemned what were called the abuses arising from the use of motor cars in elec-
    2298
    tions. There is the experience which some of us have had to endure in connection with the use of hundreds of motor cars placed at the service of certain candidates in the course of an election. The Motion to which I referred submitted that legislative steps should be taken to equalise the facilities which motor cars afford to the different candidates in Parliamentary elections. I recall that there was no strong opposition offered from any part of the House to the underlying principle of that Motion. There was a great deal of argument to the effect that it would be difficult to

    2299
    work, that it could not be done, that it would impose upon those responsible for the conduct of elections obligations which they could not effectively discharge. In the main, however, there was no very strong hostility shown by the House to the idea that, if possible, steps should be taken to equalise facilities in the use of motor cars in Parliamentary contests.
    In the course of the Committee stage of this Bill I spoke on more than one occasion on this theme, and it has afforded opportunities for many speeches in different quarters of the House. As (my first point I submit now that the Amendment ought to commend itself to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, because it is to a very great extent an Amendment lifted from the terms of proposals of their own during the Committee stage. They suggested to us, in an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) and other hon. Members, that the principle on which we should proceed was that of fixing the number of motor cars in relation to the number of electors. Our plan, as the House may recall, was the different plan of requiring the returning officer to pool the cars which people were disposed to loan for the purpose of conveying electors to the poll. It is commonly said that the Committee stage of a Bill is the stage at which in detail we exchange ideas as to the best course to take, and that so long as no violence is done to the principles which we are seeking to pursue, it is wise and proper for an Opposition to urge its views upon the Government and for the Government to try to meet those views as far as possible. It is in that mood that I am seeking to incorporate in the Bill what I understood to be the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite during the course of our Debates. Accordingly the Amendment should commend itself to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    It is an attempt to equalise the facilities which motor cars may afford to candidates. It is an Amendment which, in relation to this particular part of our election law, proceeds upon principles endorsed and approved by Parliament for the last 100 years. In that time we have had recurring efforts to improve and extend franchise facilities, and, generally
    2300
    speaking, to equalise the contest as between candidate and candidate. Hon. Members opposite object on the ground that, so far as they have an advantage by their possession of motor cars, it is not an unfair advantage. That is a legal subtlety which does not move me at all. They allege that if they have advantages they are not unfair advantages. My idea of fairness in a Parliamentary contest is to have the conditions of the fight as equal as possible. Hon. Members opposite are known in our country for their love of sport and their recognition of the general principles which govern contests of a sporting character, and I say to them that it is not sporting of them, it is not, indeed, in accordance with British notions of fair play, that they should persist in trying to retain for themselves conditions of motor car service, of money and of property, in order to be able to exercise an advantage, or acquire an advantage, over their political opponents. The law has gone to the length of declaring that as between rich and poor there must be equality; it has gone to the length of declaring that as between the poor candidate and the rich candidate there must be only the same expenditure so much per elector—
    Sir T. INSKIP: A maximum.
    Mr. CLYNES: Yes, and that is precisely what we are proposing in the case of motor cars. This proposal follows exactly the same principle and is on the same line in a search for equality as between one candidate and another, no matter to what party he may belong. I feel convinced, however, that do what we will the advantage is likely to lie less with the Labour candidates and less with the Liberal candidates than with the Conservative candidates. The conditions are such that they must frequently be in a position of advantage as compared with their political opponents. It has been said that this proposal is a benighted and futile one. Why should a proposal like this, when it is submitted from the other side of the House, be regarded as the essence of wisdom and righteousness but when it is submitted from this side of the House denounced as futile and benighted?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: Do you not do the same with our suggestions?
    Mr. CLYNES: If we are to take it as not meant seriously I shall know in future the mood of hon. Members opposite. What is it that we are proposing? What will be the position in any Parliamentary contest under the terms of the Amendment? It will be this. Taking the figure of 50,000 electors as the average for a constituency the Amendment will mean that in the case of a County Division each candidate will be allowed a maximum of 50 cars and in the case of a borough constituency each candidate will be allowed a maximum of 25 cars, which is more than double the number I ever had in my election contests. We have fixed on these figures not according to any theory or plan of Labour opportunities or chances, but in order that the party opposite should have no grievance and will be able to avail themselves of as large a fleet of cars as their numerous friends will be able to place at their disposal. I suggest that this plan has the advantage of being simple in its range of administrative duties and obligations. The original plan as we put it to the Committee would, I confess, have involved returning officers in some difficulty. No doubt they would have overcome them. It would also have involved candidates and their agents in conditions of some stress and difficulty, but this plan is a simple one of requiring cars to be registered and to limit the maximum number of those registered cars, leaving the candidates and their agents with the free use of these cars according to the interests of the electors in the constituency. I submit, therefore, that the House should accept the proposal.
    Lord EUSTACE PERCY: We have just had an example of what leadership of the House is under the Guillotine. The other day I was giving evidence before the Select Committee of this House and I suggested that the difficulty in regard to the Guillotine was that is absolved Ministers of the Crown from the ordinary performance of courtesy and intelligibility, and the Home Secretary has moved this Amendment in a tone which would be fatal to the conduct of any Bill if it were not for the Guillotine—[Interruption]—and he is ably supported by hon. Members behind him. The Home Secretary began by a passage which
    2302
    obviously betrayed the fact that he was not in the House when the hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip) made his speech ridiculing the proposal of the Government. The Home Secretary has said that we must be sporting; that we must have equality, a fair fight; we must equalise. This apparently is not to be part of the Government of the country; it is to be the subject of an elaborate and careful handicapping by a committee, who are to make rules; that is the Home Secretary's idea as to how these contests should be conducted.
    The Home Secretary says that it is an attempt to meet the views of hon. Members on this side of the House, and that as we put down an Amendment of this kind in Committee stage why are not we prepared to accept his Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well the difference between his Amendment and ours. He knows very well that we can afford to ignore the difference in counties if you fix a high enough maximum of motor cars. We fixed a high maximum, perhaps too high, but he has fixed a maximum which no one will deny is very low, and one which while it may suit the necessities of some counties clearly will not meet the needs of others. He has been asked over and over again in the course of these Debates to justify the fixing of so low a maximum for counties with scattered populations, like Worcester, but he has not deigned to give to the House the slightest reply to that argument. He thinks apparently that the way to conduct a Bill in this House under the Guillotine is to avoid answering any questions which are put to him. But this is a fair question and one which must have occurred to the Home Secretary himself. If 40 or 50 cars are enough for a comparatively crowded county constituency, like some in Lancashire and Yorkshire and the Midlands, how can that number be a sufficient maximum for counties like Worcester? How can the distinction between the borough constituency and the county constituency be the proper line of division? What sense is there in that line of division? That is a question which has been put to the Home Secretary and which he has utterly ignored. I leave the further discussion of this subject to my hon. Friends behind me, but I think it right that we should again protest

    2303
    against the extraordinary tone and manner in which the Home Secretary thinks fit to conduct a Debate of this kind.
    Captain BOURNE: The Home Secretary in introducing the Amendment referred to a Motion which I think was moved by the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Toole) earlier this Session, but he omitted to inform the House that he himself, in the course of that Debate, said that the Government would be introducing a Bill to deal with electoral reform, and that the subject-matter of the hon. Member's Motion would be considered, and some provisions to deal with it incorporated in that Bill. I remember that, after the right hon. Gentleman's intervention, it was obviously useless to carry on an academic discussion, when the decision of the Government was not known with certainty, and that the right hon. Gentleman's speech on that occasion robbed that Debate of all reality.
    The right hon. Gentleman this evening has defended his Amendment particularly on the ground that it follows the lines of an Amendment which was on the Paper in my name during the Committee stage but which was not reached. I must agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if this Amendment were accepted by the House, Sub-section (2) of this Clause would be a great deal less nonsensical than it is in its present form. At any rate this Amendment does permit the different parties to make use of such cars as they can get, according to their own judgment of what they believe to be the necessities of the case. That is a great improvement on the original suggestion that motor cars should be registered with the returning officer and then apparently allotted by him, for what purposes nobody could make out, to be used, under whose control nobody could make out—whether under the control of the registration officer or of somebody else was not stated. At any rate this proposal ensures that the cars will be made use of by the people who know where they are most wanted, and, to that extent, I regard the Amendment as a distinct improvement on the original Clause. What mystifies me is that the right hon. Gentleman should ever have drafted such a purely nonsensical Clause as that which he originally put down and I am glad
    2304
    that after the discussion in the Committee stage he has, at least, seen part of the error of his ways and is bringing forward a proposal which, if not entirely acceptable, is at least better than his original proposal.
    The main objection to this Amendment is that already raised by my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy). I regard the total allocation of cars as ridiculously small in many cases. I do not wish to develop that point now because there are Amendments to the Amendment on which the question of the number can be discussed. There was, however, one argument which ran through the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and which was also used earlier by the Solicitor-General. It was that in carrying out this limitation, the Government were merely following the precedent of previous reforms of the electoral law over a great many years. Earlier the Solicitor-General instanced the case of the Corrupt Practices Act of 1883, under which it was made illegal for any candidate for Parliament to hire a hackney vehicle for use in conveying voters to the poll. The Solicitor-General took the view, and the right hon. Gentleman rather supported him in it; that the object of that amendment of the law was to prevent the undue use of vehicles on behalf of the candidates, but I cannot help thinking that they have both overlooked the real reason for that change in the law. It was not a question of the use of vehicles for conveying voters to the poll because those vehicles which were not hackney carriages were left undisturbed and vehicles of all sorts were in use in great numbers in the elections of that time.
    I do not think that there is any evidence to show that the limitation of the use of vehicles for the conveyance of voters was the intention of the Corrupt Practices Act. I believe that the reason why that limitation was introduced was this. In the old days the electorates were very small and the drivers of these vehicles, the cabmen, were often quite a considerable proportion of an electorate, and, obviously, if these men were offered very high prices for the hire of their cabs on the day of an election, it would have had a considerable influence in inducing them to vote for the candidate who hired them. Therefore, I

    2305
    believe that the object of this limitation was the prevention of corruption, in the sense of using money to obtain votes, and that it was not in the least intended to limit the number of vehicles used for the conveyance of the voters. I cannot help thinking that in pursuing that argument the right hon. Gentleman is following the wrong trail.
    We live in a time of vastly extended electorates, when there are far more people on the register, and when the general desire of all parties—though I must admit that in view of the cordial support of this Clause by hon. Members opposite I am very doubtful whether that desire is genuine on their part—is to have the largest possible number of votes given at elections. As far as the other parties are concerned, at any rate, that is their desire. As we have larger electorates, we have, consequently, a greater number of removals, and more people living at remote distances from polling places. There are many people who in 1883 would not have had votes; therefore their remoteness from a polling station would have been a matter of indifference as regards elections in those days. But to-day we must give facilities for people who are living in remote places to record their votes. Therefore, even though the suggestion in the Amendment is to some extent an improvement on the right hon. Gentleman's original suggestion, still I regard the Amendment as hopelessly inadequate to meet the case, and as likely to result in a heavy drop in the polling in rural districts, and for these reasons I could not possibly accept it.
    Mr. TINKER: I want to support the Home Secretary in this Amendment, because the last time we were discussing this part of the Bill I joined with the other side in objecting to what was in the Bill. I then argued that the time had not yet arrived when we could get public-spirited men who would put motor cars at the disposal of the returning officer for the general use of everybody, and therefore I said that there was no use following those lines for getting motor cars. I argued that there was some need for motor cars to bring up certain classes of the electors. I made the remark that I thought we ought to lay down a scale, and I suggested one for every 5,000 voters. During the discussion afterwards on what had been
    2306
    said, one hon. Member opposite said to me that he agreed somewhat with me, but he thought the figure of one car for every 5,000 electors was rather too narrow, but that if the Home Secretary would bring in something different but on those lines, he thought it would be agreeable to them.
    Now, the Home Secretary has tried to get the opinion of the House. He said he wanted to find out what was the desire of everybody, and I thought at that time that the desire was somewhat on the lines suggested in his Amendment to-day, that we should try to regulate it so as to get everybody to the poll. The Amendment allows one car for every 1,000 electors in a county division and one for every 2,000 electors in a borough. That will give a fair number of motor cars for each candidate, and if they devote themselves to those electors who cannot very well get to the poll otherwise—I am speaking of those who are old, and some who are ill, but not too ill to be called bedfast, but too old to walk any distance to the poll—I think the Amendment fulfils all that anybody could desire.
    I would ask the other side at least to be reasonable in this matter. They have argued that they want some restriction of motor cars and that they do not want an altogether unlimited use of cars, and I think the Home Secretary has brought in a very fair Amendment which ought to meet with the approval of everybody who wants to do the proper thing by the electors. It will put us now in the position of saying at least that there is some restriction on the other side, and we cannot say, as we have said in the past, "There are 200 cars for the Conservative candidate, and we have only a handful of cars." It does away with that anomaly, and if hon. Members opposite want things to be equal, this Amendment enables them to say to the electors that this proposal is reasonable for everybody. I want to thank the Home Secretary for having brought in this Amendment, which is, I think, an expression of the views of the majority of this House in trying to arrive at a fair solution of what was a very great difficulty in the original Bill, which was unworkable in this respect. There are now the germs at any rate of an agreed thing that can be worked to the satisfaction of all.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Dunnico): I do not know whether it would

    2307
    be for the convenience of the House if we dealt now with the first Amendment and got it out of the way, and then proceed with the second Amendment of the Home Secretary, which raises the substance of the Question under discussion. If it is the wish of the House, I will put the Question on the first Amendment now.
    Mr. CLYNES: I beg to move, in page 4, line 1, to leave out from the word "registered" to the end of the Subsection, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "may, notwithstanding anything in Subsection (1) of this section, be used for the purpose of conveying electors to the poll on behalf of the candidate, subject as respects registration and use, respectively, to the following conditions and limitations:

    (a) The returning officer shall not permit the registration of any vehicle unless the consent in writing of the election agent of the candidate is produced to him at the time when application for registration is made;

    (b) The returning officer shall not permit the registration of vehicles for use on behalf of any one candidate in excess of the following scales, that is to say, in the case of an election for a county constituency, one vehicle for every one thousand electors on the register, and in the case of an election for borough constituency, one vehicle for every two thousand electors on the register; and

    (c) Vehicles, though registered, shall not be used as aforesaid unless they bear such registration mark or other means of identification as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State."

    Lord E. PERCY: May I suggest, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you should put the Question that the words stand part of the Bill now, because until we have omitted the words proposed to be left out we cannot move the insertion of other words?
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 5, at the end, to insert the words:
    "(a) Upon application for registration the owner of any vehicle shall signify to the
    2308
    returning officer whether it is his intention to use his vehicle during the whole of the day of the poll or within certain hours thereof only, and accordingly the returning officer shall register that vehicle for use during the whole of the day of the poll or within such hours as aforesaid only."
    The object of this Amendment and the two following Amendments on the Paper is very simple, and it is that a car which is only in use for part of the day should only come into the quota during that period of the day in which it is actually used for conveying voters to the poll, and that when it is withdrawn from that use, a candidate shall be entitled to substitute another car for it without exceeding the maximum number allowed under the Amendment. I should like to draw attention to the fact that under the existing law a poll is held from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., and it is open to any candidate to demand that it should be opened at 7 a.m. and closed at 9 p.m. This means, in other words, that you must have a 12-hour day and you may have a 13-hour day or a 14-hour day.
    This is an Amendment which comes particularly within the province of the Home Secretary, because he is really responsible for the enforcement of law and order. To ask any individual to drive a car for 14 consecutive hours a day is to endanger the public safety, and therefore every step should be taken to discourage such a state of affairs. To expect any individual to drive a ear for 12 hours a day is to expect far too much, and therefore I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider my Amendment to the proposed Amendment merely from that point of view. As it stands at present under the proposed Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, as far as I can understand it, a car once registered cannot be changed. The registration remains with the car, and that in fact means that the driver of the car, if he is keen and willing to help, will have to remain at the wheel for 12 or 14 hours I admit that it can be argued by hon. Members opposite that, after all, somebody else could drive the car. The great majority of cars are driven by owner-drivers, who, in many cases, perhaps unreasonably, have a strong prejudice against anyone else handling their vehicles. I am not saying whether they are right or wrong; I am stating the fact, and the fact is that when a driver has

    2309
    driven sufficiently long, in his own estimation, and, what is far more important, sufficiently long for the safety of the public, he will go off duty and the car will go with him. The result will be that with the limited number of cars which the Home Secretary is proposing, there will be at the most only about half that number in use at any given hour.
    It is my experience, and I gather from correspondence that it is the experience of most others, that people lend their cars for specific hours. You may have a car from 8 to 12; very likely the owner wants it himself in the afternoon; the car does a certain definite period of work, and it is then withdrawn. If the Home Secretary's Amendment is not amended somewhat on the lines I suggest, this will happen. You will write round to various people who might be willing to lend their cars asking them if they will lend them, and for what hours. You will get a list back. I understand that if the Home Secretary's proposals are carried out, I shall be entitled to 38 cars in my constituency; I might quite easily get offers for 50 or 60. I or my agent, or whoever is in charge of that department, will go through the list and will pick out the people who say that they are willing to lend their cars all day, and we shall ask these people, and these only, to lend us their cars. No doubt, so far as I am concerned, and so far as the conduct of the election is concerned, it will make very little difference to me, but I suggest to the House for serious consideration whether it is in the interests of the public that you should have people driving cars all day in an election. We know what election traffic is. People have have to drive many miles for "removals," very often the roads are not suitable, and the drivers are in a hurry, and it will be an advantage to the public that a car which has done so many hours should be withdrawn from the election, and that another car should be substituted for it. This is a point that requires the earnest consideration of the Government.
    Lord ERSKINE: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. I have no doubt the Government will give consideration to the views that my hon. and gallant Friend has put forward. Another argument struck me while my hon. and gallant Friend was speaking. Hon. Members opposite have always
    2310
    been very keen on an eight-hour day. The poll will be open in many constituencies for 13 hours, and if this Amendment to the Amendment is not made, drivers will be on the road for that period. In the interests of public safety and of the drivers, the Government should give some consideration to my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment. Apparently, the intention of the Government is that candidates in a county division should have one car for each thousand electors, and I imagine that if that is their intention, their desire also is that these cars should be able to be run during the whole time the poll is open; otherwise, the concession they have made is not a valuable one. I do not think that the demand which we are making upon the Home Secretary is one that he need resist very strongly. It certainly will not make any great difference to his Clause. It will be quite easy to work, and I see no real reason why he should not accept it. In many cases it may even strengthen the concession which he has given us. I have no doubt that the Government's intention is that we should have the number of cars specified in the Amendment, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to cheat us out of the number that he is willing to allow. Therefore, it is not a very great thing that we are asking.
    Mr. GEORGE OLIVER: The Home Secretary has been extremely generous in bringing forward his Amendment. Instead of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) being in such a ferocious temper with the right hon. Gentleman, he should have been the first to congratulate him and to accept the Amendment with open arms. What does the Home Secretary's Amendment concede? To understand its true value we must remember what the Amendment proposes to supersede. In my constituency, which is comparable to constituencies of hon. Members opposite, my opponent will be entitled to have 35 cars. What an amazing number! What benefit does that do to me? And yet the Government propose to say to my Tory opponent, "You may have 35." What is the Amendment conferring upon the party of the Government which has introduced the Bill? Absolutely nothing. Yet my right hon. Friend the Home

    2311
    Secretary is moving an Amendment which he knows confers nothing on his own people and everything on the Opposition. If he had stuck to the Bill as it was originally drafted, he would undoubtedly have conferred some benefit on his own party. In every other factor where expense is concerned some limit is imposed. I want to spend more money than I do, but I cannot because I have not got it. Many hon. Members opposite want to spend more money than they do, but cannot because the law has imposed a limit. When I think of the unfortunate Labour candidate who sits for West Perthshire—[HON. MEMBERS: "There never will be one!"]—I can see a Labour candidate getting in for West Perthshire—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid the hon. Member is now discussing the Amendment, and not the Amendment to the Amendment.
    Mr. OLIVER: I thought we were discussing the Home Secretary's Amendment, and at the same time the Amendment to the Amendment, because very little discussion has taken place on the Home Secretary's Amendment. If your Ruling is as you have said, I shall be quite out of order.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is a Ruling that I must give. This is an Amendment to an Amendment, and until we have disposed of it we cannot discuss the original Amendment. I have allowed the discussion to range pretty widely over the subject on the previous Amendment.
    Mr. OLIVER: Then my observations must be confined to whether the driving of a registered car is to be restricted to the actual hours for which it is being used for that purpose. I do not think there will be a great objection on the part of the Government to accepting an Amendment of that description. The only difficulty will be who is going to determine when these gentlemen clock on and clock off? There is no doubt in my opinion that those who have brought forward the Amendment know that if it were accepted it would provide the finest opportunity of extending the provisions of the Clause.
    Lord ERSKINE: Surely there would be only one badge for each car and there would be no possibility of driving the car without the badge?
    Mr. OLIVER: I have no doubt that the Noble Lord has fought as many elections as I have and I have fought five, and it would be all right to make statements of that sort at a Sunday school gathering; but those of us who have been associated with public life know full well that with a proviso of this kind it would be the easiest thing in the world to make it impossible to put a check on the number of cars and the time at which the cars are being used. If it were possible to put some time limit on the actual driving—and I do not know how far the Road Traffic Act applies to elections—then I think it would be a very good idea; but I fear that if the Government were to accept this particular proviso it would give too big a loophole, and would be absolutely unworkable in the general interests of fair dealing.
    9.0 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: The hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. G. Oliver) made an interesting contribution to our Debates, and I am very sorry that he has not intervened in them more frequently. He blamed us for not keeping closely to the Bill. It is very difficult to keep closely to the Bill, because since it has been introduced almost every word of it has been altered. The Government have been scarcely able to stand upon a single word of the Bill from start to finish. And if I may say so without offence, the hon. Member for Ilkeston, in his speech, did not keep very closely to the words of his Amendment.
    Mr. OLIVER: And the Deputy-Speaker pulled me up.
    Sir S. HOARE: I was surprised by an observation he made about the difficulty of carrying out the provisions of this Amendment. His experience of politics and of electioneering seems to have been rather on the seamy side. I cannot understand why the proviso proposed by my hon. Friend should not be quite easily carried out. All that is necessary is that a pass should be given to the driver of a car; then the police would be able to stop and to prosecute everyone who has not got a pass. I should have thought such a proviso far more easy to carry out than 999 out of 1,000 other con-

    2313
    dtions within the four corners of this Bill. [Interruption.] The Solicitor -General says that there are not 1,000 conditions, and so I will say 99 out of 100. If some provision of this kind is not inserted one of two things will happen: either drivers will drive longer hours than they ought to drive, at great risk to themselves, to the occupants of the car and to people in the street, or, if they do not go on driving after they get tired, then a certain number of cars will be out of action. The result would be that the provision of cars arranged for in this Act will be totally inadequate.
    We asked the Government earlier why they had selected these particular allowances of cars for the urban and rural constituencies respectively and we have not yet had an answer, but I imagine the answer would be that they calculated that the number of cars would be sufficient to carry to the poll the aged, the infirm and those who live at a distance. If a number of cars are out of action owing to the drivers being too tired to drive any longer—and 13 hours is much too long a spell for a driver—a number of voters will be deprived of the chance of going to the poll. If drivers are not to be expected to drive longer than seven or eight hours there ought to be many more cars, and I hope the Home Secretary will see that this is a reasonable proposal and that he ought to accept it. The hon. Member for Ilkeston said at the beginning of his speech that it was a very good provision.
    Mr. OLIVER: I said it was workable.
    Sir S. HOARE: So far no reason has been given to show why the Amendment to the Amendment is unworkable.
    Mr. CLYNES: I appreciate the motives of the Mover of the Amendment to the Amendment, but I cannot follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) in his sweeping allusion to the changes which have been made in this Bill. Probably the right hon. Gentleman was not out of order in making that reference, but he was not within the usual range of accuracy. I regard an Amendment of the kind which has been moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) as wholly unworkable. This great consideration for the drivers who have to work such long hours seems to
    2314
    me to show a sympathy for labour which is not common on the opposite side of the House, and, so far as I know, it has found no expression in any of those Parliamentary contests which have taken place at by-elections, where we have heard nothing whatever of the sympathy hon. Members opposite have for those who have been driving cars for 12 or 14 hours a day.
    The scheme proposed in the Amendment to the Amendment is quite unworkable. It provides no means of checking the number of cars available at any one time, and the most serious objection to it is that it would place obligations on the returning officer which it would be impossible for him to carry out. No returning officer could exercise such a ceaseless watchfulness in respect to the movement of cars, and the particular hours they should be in use, and it would not be fair to the returning officer to impose such duties upon him.
    Captain BOURNE: Would it not be possible for the returning officer to make regulations under paragraph (c) of the Home Secretary's Amendment? I think that would put the matter to the test.
    Mr. CLYNES: That might be possible, but it would be a very difficult thing to carry out. My Amendment provides three things. In the first place, it provides for registration of any vehicle; secondly, it provides one vehicle for for every 1,000 electors on the register in a county constituency and one for every 2,000 in a borough, and, generally speaking, by this arrangement things would find their own level. Thirdly, it provides means of identification. Consequently, the varying conditions which have been referred to would not apply. For these reasons, I think it is quite unnecessary to impose the very difficult task upon the returning officer which is provided in the Amendment to the Amendment, and I cannot see any advantage in adopting it.
    Sir COOPER RAWSON: Would it not be possible to issue one licence for the morning and another licence for the afternoon? There might be transferable tickets issued with different colours for different politics, so that a man who was entitled to 10 tickets could change his registration over to different cars during the day. I think a system of that kind

    2315
    would be much fairer than asking a man to work for 12 or 14 hours a day, which is what the Government are doing under this Bill.
    Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: The hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. G. Oliver) asked very naively what advantage to him would be motor cars which were lent to his opponents and he said, "Absolutely none." Let us carry that point a bit further. My opponent is a very able and accomplished speaker, whereas I am notoriously a bad speaker. Taking the same line of argument I might ask what use are my opponent's accomplishments to me? Absolutely no use. This Amendment which has been introduced by the Home Secretary is a great improvement on the Bill as it was originally drafted, but I maintain that the Amendment to the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) would still further improve the Bill. It seems to me to be the easiest thing in the world to provide that the proper number of cars shall be used and no more. It is the simplest thing in the world to issue a definite number of registration plates which could be transferred from one car to another. Never at any time during the day will the proper number to which the party is entitled be exceeded. If the Amendment to the Amendment be not accepted, either a driver will work far longer than is safe from the point of view of himself, his passengers, or the general public, or else when you select a car you will select one the owner of which does not object to it being driven by a substitute driver.
    That means two things. First of all, these cars will not be the best cars, which means that their brakes and general equipment will not be in the best order. It means, also, that the substitute driver will not be as efficient a driver of the car as the original driver would be. It is essential, when you are driving a car, to know which is the brake pedal and which is the accelerator pedal. [Interruption.] A substitute driver may have been driving earlier in the day a car with the accelerator pedal between the clutch pedal and the brake pedal, and he may then be put on to a car whose accelerator pedal is on the right
    2316
    of the brake pedal. When you are driving in a crowded thoroughfare, or when you want to pull up at the polling station where there is a crowd of people waiting, it is essential to know which is the brake and which is the accelerator pedal. [Interruption.] Seriously, it seems to me that the objections raised by the Home Secretary will not hold water. A definite number of registration plates could be issued to each party, and they could be transferred, if and when necessary, from one car to another, so that there would not be at any time more than the specified number of cars on the road, cars would be available all the time, and no party would obtain the slightest advantage over any other.
    Mr. VAUGHAN: I rise to resist the Amendment to the Home Secretary's Amendment, because I regard it as a subtle but deliberate attempt to double the number of Tory ears used at elections. Everyone who has had experience of elections knows that the Conservative candidates always have large reserves at hand. The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) has referred to 50 being at his disposal, but I am sure he could have said 250, having regard to his personal qualities as well as to the party of which he is a member. I admit that I have no reserves, because my three or four cars, even if they work all day, will not be able to compete with the reserves that the Tory candidate will have. I resist the Amendment also because it is unnecessary. There has been a great deal of talk about drivers or owner-drivers working for 13 or 14 hours a day, but, however zealous a Conservative driver or owner-driver may be, or whatever pressure he may be able to put upon his chauffeur, everybody knows, and none better than the Noble Lord himself, who is such an enthusiastic motorist, that no driver can possibly stand the strain of driving for 13 or 14 hours, and that he will certainly go on strike long before even the eleventh or twelfth hour is approached. Those who during the War had to drive, under compulsion, for 11 or 12 hours a day, know that the physical and mental strain is so great that it cannot be done. I wish it were possible for the Home Secretary to cut the ground from under all the humbug that we have been hearing on this matter—[Interruption]—I refer to the humbug of those who are responsible for this Amendment—and

    2317
    to include a Clause by which the use of motor cars at elections would be limited to eight hours per day. That would solve the whole problem.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: I cannot think that the Home Secretary is incapable of understanding an Amendment of this sort; it seems to me to be so simple. The last speaker told us that no one could drive a motor car for 13 hours, and we know that in the majority of cases nowadays an election day is one of 13 hours. It is proposed that a certain number of cars should be allotted to each party, presumably for 13 hours in the case of each car. If that be not the case, the original Amendment is absurd. The whole idea of the suggestion of the Home Secretary is that a car should be used for the whole day, and yet we are told that a poor innocent car cannot be driven for a certain number of hours, but that apparently it needs a rest. We do not think that the car needs a rest, but we do think that the drivers need a rest. In the majority of London elections I lend a car. My chauffeur takes the car, but, even though I might need him for other purposes later on, he would not allow anyone else to drive that car. He does not even allow me to drive it. If I am here late at the House of Commons, and suggest that I should drive myself home he says, "Nothing of the sort, Sir; I will come and drive my car home," and he comes here accordingly.
    At the same time, we realise that on an election day, when there is a great deal of traffic, and when large numbers of people are going about, some regulations are required by which the drivers can be changed if necessary. It is suggested that each driver should display a badge, and I should have thought it was as easy as anything to issue so many badges in the morning. I do not know why it is suggested that someone should go up and down the roads to see if everyone has a badge, because, if 1,000 badges are given out, only 1,000 badges can be worn, whether they are worn by one person or by another. The last speaker suggested that the cars were all Tory cars, but I beg to point out that that is not so. At the last election that I fought, one of my opponents had a great
    2318
    many more ears than I had, and that is so in many cases.
    Mr. VAUGHAN: I am sure that the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent me. I never said that they were all Tory cars.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: The hon. Member certainly put the emphasis on Tory cars. I remember an election in North London only a few months ago, in which there were a great many more other cars than Tory cars. [HON. MEMBERS: "Beaver-brook!"] I am not here to tell the House, nor would it be in order for me to do so, where the various parties begin and end, but, however it is, I do not think that this question of badges on the cars or of driving for 13 hours per day has any reference to one particular party. I believe this to be a very good Amendment, which would give employment to other people for the other half of the day, and I think it ought to be accepted by the Government.
    Mr. ATKINSON: The necessity or otherwise for this Amendment depends on the sufficiency of the number of cars allowed. If the number allowed under the Home Secretary's Amendment were amply sufficient, there would be no need for this Amendment, but, if not, it becomes very important to make the allotted number effective. As the matter stands, there can be no question that the number is not effective. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite jeer, but I do not know whether they have tried to drive a car for 12 or 14 hours. In my humble opinion it is wholly impossible.
    Mr. VAUGHAN: It is not necessary.
    Mr. ATKINSON: Take the case of one's own constituency, which one knows something about. I have 16 separate and distinct towns or villages in my constituency, and I think it covers one of the largest areas in the country. I have 70,000 electors, and I should be allowed 70 cars. That is just over four per town. Four is not sufficient for the smallest of those villages. The insufficiency must be patent to everybody. To make that number, small as it is, effective, the Amendment to the Amendment must be accepted. If it is not accepted, what it will mean to me is that I shall have about two cars per town on duty throughout the day. When I think of the distances they

    2319
    have to go and the number of people they have to collect, the absurdity of it is patent. The test in this matter should be the interest of the electors. Hon. Members on the other side never think of the electors. It has been perfectly obvious that they are thinking of the candidates, and thinking of it as a contest between A and B, and seeing that she conditions are equal.
    That is a totally wrong point of view. Let the House remember that there is no point in this at all, unless somebody is going to be disfranchised. There is no purpose in having a great number of cars unless there are people waiting to be brought to the poll, and if you cut the numbers down, somebody is going to be deprived of the opportunity of voting. It is not going to do hon. Members on the other side any good to cut down the number of cars unless fewer people go to the poll. The whole purpose of the Measure is to disfranchise somebody, and, unless it does, there is no purpose in it. I know who will be disfranchised in my constituency. The strength of my opponent lies in the more thickly inhabited
    towns, but throughout the country districts they are mainly Conservatives and can vote only after six o'clock in the evening, and they have in many places miles to go. We cannot got them to the poll as it is, and when it is nearly always wet, as it seems to be in that part of the world, on election days, the idea of getting people between six and eight o'clock in the evening is an absurdity with the numbers cut down to two, three or four cars per town. The point I want to emphasise is that the number allowed is wholly insufficient. The whole object behind this legislation is to disfranchise somebody. That somebody will always be the agricultural labourer, and, as has been pointed out, the older people living in the country many miles from the polling station. I think that if there is any honesty of purpose behind this legislation, the Amendment to the Amendment should be accepted without demur.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 107; Noes, 221.

    [Division No. 261.]

    AYES.

    [9.30 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Remer, John R.

    Albery, Irving James

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

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

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

    Atkinson, C.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

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

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Simms, Major-General J.

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

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

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)

    Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Inskip, Sir Thomas

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Boyce, Leslie

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Broadbent, Colonel J.

    Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

    Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

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

    Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

    Thompson, Luke

    Butler, R. A.

    Llewellin, Major J. J.

    Thomson, Sir F.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Lockwood, Captain J. H.

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

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

    Long, Major Hon. Eric

    Tinne, J. A.

    Christie, J. A.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Marjoribanks, Edward

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Meller, R. J.

    Vaugban-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

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

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

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

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Muirhead, A. J.

    Wells, Sydney R.

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

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

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

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Ramsbotham, H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Faile, Sir Bertram G.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Captain Sir George Bowyer and Sir George Penny.

    Ferguson, Sir John

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

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

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

    Phillips, Dr. Marion

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

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

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

    Potts, John S.

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

    Herriotts, J.

    Price, M. P.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Pybus, Percy John

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Angell, Sir Norman

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Arnott, John

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

    Raynes, W. R.

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Barr, James

    Jones, Llewellyn., F.

    Ritson, J.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Romeril, H. G.

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

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Rowson, Guy

    Benson, G.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Kinley, J.

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

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Kirkwood, D.

    Sanders, W. S.

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Sandham, E.

    Bowen, J. W.

    Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Scott James

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Law, A. (Rossendale)

    Scurr, John

    Bromley, J.

    Leach, W.

    Sexton, Sir James

    Brothers, M.

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

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

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Lees, J.

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Buchanan, G.

    Leonard, W.

    Shinwell, E.

    Burgess, F. G.

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

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

    Lindley, Fred W.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Caine, Hall., Derwent

    Lloyd, C. Eills

    Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

    Cameron, A. G

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Cape, Thomas

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

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

    Lunn, William

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Chater, Daniel

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Church, Major A. G.

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Clarke, J. S.

    McElwee, A.

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Cluse, W. S.

    McEntee, V. L.

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    McKinlay, A.

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Cove, William G.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    McShane, John James

    Strauss, G. R.

    Daggar, George

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

    Sullivan, J.

    Dallas, George

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Daiton, Hugh

    Manning, E. L.

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    March, S.

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

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    Marcus, M.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Marley, J.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Marshall, Fred

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Mathers, George

    Townend, A. E.

    Duncan, Charles

    Matters, L. W.

    Vaughan, David

    Ede, James Chuter

    Maxton, James

    Viant. S. P.

    Edge, Sir William

    Messer, Fred

    Walkden, A. G.

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Middleton, G.

    Walker, J.

    Elmley, Viscount

    Mills, J. E.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Foot, Isaac

    Milner, Major J.

    Watkins, F. C.

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

    Montague, Frederick

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Morris, Rhys Hopkins

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Gill, T. H.

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

    West, F. R.

    Gossling, A. G.

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Westwood, Joseph

    Gould, F.

    Mort, D. L.

    White, H. G.

    Gray, Milner

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Murnin, Hugh

    Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

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

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

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

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Palin, John Henry

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    Harbord, A.

    Paling, Wilfrid

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    Hardie, George D.

    Palmer, E. T.

    Haycock, A. W.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hayday, Arthur

    Perry, S. F.

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Charleton.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Sir D. MACLEAN: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 9, after the word "not," to insert the words:
    2322
    "except in the case of an election of a county constituency exceeding four hundred square miles in area."
    I hope this Amendment to the proposed Amendment, though perhaps it will only

    2323
    get a certain amount of reluctant acquiescence in some parts of the House, will meet with a good deal of general agreement. A point which was made by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley) earlier in the evening is distinctly appropriate to this Amendment. He said the original proposal of the Government had undergone a very marked change, and it was really now only a question of degree and not of principle. An Amendment has already been debated in the name of the Home Secretary moving away from the original proposal, and my Amendment to the proposed Amendment is only a further extension of it.
    Lest it should be thought that I have made any particular measurement of my own constituency, or indeed of anyone else's, may I state the basis upon which the Amendment to the proposed Amendment in its detail comes before the House. At the Ullswater Conference on electoral reform, in the course of our discussions a scheme was propounded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). He emphasized, what is perfectly obvious, that there are some constituencies which, by reason of their size, were not suitable for proportional representation, and to those it was suggested that there should be applied the system of the Alternative Vote. Those constituencies were taken out. They number about 50. I think 54 is the correct number. A very considerable majority of them are of the political complexion of hon. Members above the Gangway. It is obvious that in such constituencies, if you are to get the voters to the poll at all, the limit suggested by the Government is quite inadequate. Since the subject has been so fully and freely debated to-day, and indirectly yesterday, I do not think I need say any more in support of it.
    Sir GEORGE PENNY: I rise to support the Amendment because I feel it is both fair and reasonable to the large county constituencies. The Home Secretary just now stressed very heavily the question of equality. He wanted to see equality all round. I rather doubted whether he was not speaking with his tongue in his cheek, for we on this side think very differently from him in that direction. We hold the view that it is
    2324
    done for purely political purposes. The constituency of the Noble Lady the Member for West Perth (Duchess of Atholl) covers a huge area and under the Government proposals she will have only a small number of cars allowed her to bring electors to the poll. They know quite well on the opposite side of the House that most urban districts are Socialistic whereas the rural districts are not. The Noble Lady is being placed at a great disadvantage by only having a few cars to traverse that huge area, and I consider the Home Secretary should do something different as regards the allocation of cars for big areas in constituencies of this character. I also think that if we were to rely upon the tender mercies of the Home Secretary and the equality he wishes to give us we should see him bringing in a Bill absolutely forbidding any cars whatever for the Conservative party. I do not think that he would trouble much about the Liberal party, because he knows very well that they have already killed themselves by allying themselves to his party.
    The Home Secretary seems to think that in claiming equality for elections it is a sort of football match, and that you must have equal teams. He does not seem to realise that people are sent here to represent the country and that it is not an ordinary sporting contest. We do not want equality in that sense, but we do want to see people brought to the poll so that they can determine what kind of Government they wish to have. The people of the country now realise the kind of Government we have at the present time and there is no doubt the Home Secretary is getting anxious and is doing all be can to see as many of his party brought to the poll next time as possible. If he wants to see equality, why does he only decide the number of cars? He does not tell us whether a car has to be a one-seater, a two-seater a Baby Austin or a chars-a-banc. If I may make a suggestion to the Noble Lady who sits for West Perth, I would have 30 or 40 friends who have chars-a-banc, and have them sent round the country to bring supporters to the poll.
    Why does the Home Secretary not stipulate that we are to have equality regarding the candidates who stand? One constituency might like a man of stature like the Home Secretary, and a

    2325
    diminutive man like myself might be standing against him. What is he going to do to get equality in such cases? Or they might say, "We want a man with a jolly, happy nature, like that of the Home Secretary, and not an acid kind of nature like I have got." When they talk about equality in this way, we know very well that they are only talking about their own desires. I consider that the Bill and the Government's Amendment have been brought forward with the direct object of doing all they possibly can to harm the Conservative party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Those cheers make me think so more than ever. They know that the day of retribution is near at hand. The time will not be long coming before those on the opposite side of the House will not be governing this country.
    Mr. CLYNES: I hope that in the few minutes I shall speak to the House upon this Amendment, the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Sir G. Penny) will be able to conclude that I shall make up for my lack of stature in an amplitude of reasonableness on this Amendment. This is, as indeed are many other features of the Bill, a distinctly nonparty feature of our proposal. When the point was touched upon in the Committee stage, I indicated a willingness on our part to consider and to discuss with the leaders of parties, questions that were outside matters of principle. The principle was limitation. I indicated as regards motor cars that I would be ready to discuss with others whether we could reach agreement on the point of numbers. There was no response to that suggestion, and I fixed a number which the House has by its decision approved. Outside that decision, there stands another point. It is the question of the exceptional area. We have provided for the county area and we have provided for the ordinary borough area, but there are other constituencies in Wales, in Devon, Cornwall, Yorkshire and Scotland, and perhaps elsewhere, which are exceptionally situated, vast, mountainous and difficult to cover. It is those particular constituencies which the Amendment of my right hon. Friend is designed to cover, and in the hope that there will be, at least on this matter in respect of exceptional constituencies, a unanimity of agreement, and a setting aside of ques-
    2326
    tions of ugly motives such as have found expression in many of our speeches, I would suggest to the House the wisdom of accepting the Amendment.
    Sir S. HOARE: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the conciliatory attitude which he has shown, and I congratulate still more the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) for having achieved a very great success in having his Amendment accepted. I always like to see faithful services rewarded. In the discussions of this Bill, while the Government have scarcely maintained their position upon any of the Clauses from start to finish, the one thing which has always remained perfectly consistent is the support which they have received from certain right hon. and hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. In view of that fact, it would have been extremely ungrateful on the part of the Home Secretary to have refused the request of the right hon. Member for North Cornwall.
    The effect of the Amendment is to make it easier for certain hon. and right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway—[An HON. MEMBER: "And above!"] I am thinking particularly of certain right hon. and hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway who sit for scattered districts in the North of Scotland, and in Wales, who require a large number of motors to bring their electors to the poll. I congratulate them upon their success, but I think it is a little hard that they should not allow other constituencies with almost an equal claim for similar treatment to have the number of cars which they also require. I cannot claim, representing Chelsea, to have a constituency 400 miles square, but, in spite of the geographical difference between North Cornwall and Chelsea, I can say, without fear of contradition, that owing to the number of electors there are in my constituency, I have just as strong a claim in Chelsea for a larger number of cars required to take my voters to the poll as has the representative of any other constituency in this House.
    Having said that, let me once again congratulate the Home Secretary on having kept the pact so extraordinarily well with hon. Members and right hon. Members below the Gangway. During the course of this discussion there have been only two Amendments, so far as I remember, accepted by the Government from any

    2327
    benches other than their own. One Amendment was moved by the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) and the second Amendment has now been moved by the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean). It shows that in this matter, at least, the pact is being well kept, the arrangement is being well carried out and, once again, the fact is clearly brought before the House and the country that this is not a serious Measure of constitutional reform but merely an electioneering dodge between hon. and right Members opposite and hon. and right hon. Members below the Gangway.
    10.0 p.m.
    Miss WILKINSON: I am sorry to intervene in these harmonious relations between the representatives of the parties, but I think that the acceptance, the ready acceptance, by the Home Secretary of the Amendment will cause some very real searching of heart when it is read in the country districts to morrow. Something has been said from the opposite benches about equality as between one constituency and another. There is no such thing as equality between constituencies, rural or urban. The only equality of importance is the equality of chance of a candidate fighting in any one particular constituency. I would like to ask the Home Secretary whether the acceptance of the Amendment means that in a constituency of over 400 square miles the number of motor cars, as now, is to be unlimited, or does he intend to introduce at some later stage a higher limit? I would point out that even under the present unlimited conditions, when we were fighting a by-election at Tavistock, the Labour party in that enormous area had only one rather battered two-seater motor car. This is not only a question of funds; it depends also on whether the candidate has friends who have motor cars. It is horribly unfair to those who are fighting in scattered constituencies, which are poverty stricken, and who have not a trade union organisation behind them, leaving them to fight when there will be no limitation on the number of motor cars. I am terribly disappointed that the Home Secretary should have accepted the Amendment so lightly, because of the disappointment that will be caused in the country areas.
    Sir BASIL PETO: I have obtained a copy of the schedule of constituencies to which the Amendment applies, and I would point out that in regard to the county of Devon there is only one constituency, and it is represented by a Member of the Liberal party, the South Molton Division, which is exempt from the restriction on the use of motor cars.
    Mr. FOOT: There are two Devon constituencies. There is also Tavistock.
    Sir B. PETO: The hon. Member is correct, there are two, but the argument is the same. There is one county area in Devon represented by a Liberal which is exempt. Of the other four or five county constituencies which are represented by Members of my party only one, Tavistock, is exempt. It is curious to see the haphazard way in which the Amendment will work. Before I sat for the constituency which I now represent I sat for Devizes, the East Wilts division. I find that Devizes, although a perfectly compact, more or less square area, with no special difficulty of access, is exempt, whereas the constituency that I now represent is to be restricted in the use of motor cars, although it is infinitely more difficult to get voters to the poll in the North West Division of Devonshire than it is in the South Molton Division. North West Devon is a coastwise constituency, divided by two great rivers, with only two bridges within the area of the constituency by which access can be got across either of the rivers, and from one to the other. It is essentially a scattered constituency with a very long coastline, but by a mere accident it happens to come just below the 400 miles limit, whereas the hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) who has a square, compact division without anything like the same difficulties as my own, is to have an unlimited use of motor cars. The Liberal party so far as Devon is concerned have not done badly. They have only one county representative and he is exempt, whereas of the four or five representatives of our party in the county we are all restricted except one. To tell me that that is a fair proposal and one that really meets the difficulty, is absurd.
    I cannot help noting a terrible downfall of the whole consideration of these electoral questions as between the two great conferences that have occurred in recent

    2329
    years. I tad the privilege of being a member of the conference presided over in 1917 by Mr. Speaker's predecessor, Lord Ullswater. That was under the Coalition Government. The three parties were represented on that conference, as they were on the other conference of which I was a member. The difference of atmosphere in the way that this question was considered in the interval of 10 or 12 years between the one conference and the other, is perfectly amazing. In the conference of 1917 we tried to decide what was for the interest of the country and, under the able advice that we got, we made representations which were, on the whole, unanimous. We dealt with the great question of electoral reform. We recommended a vast extension of the franchise, balancing and compromising as between one party and the other, and we recommended all those proposals to the acceptance of the House on the grounds that I have stated.
    Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: And you recommended Proportional Representation.
    Sir B. PETO: I agree, but I do not think that that has anything to do with the argument I am now addressing to the House. We recommended a trial of Proportional Representation and a trial of the Alternative Vote to see whether either of them was for the general advantage of the representation of the people. That is a totally different proposition from what was considered the other day. But I will take the point of the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot do more than refer to it briefly, as it has nothing to do with the Amendment. The interruption has nothing to do with the Amendment.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot pursue that subject.
    Sir B. PETO: I gladly obey your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. This shows the disadvantage of interruptions which have no relevance to the matter in hand. The only thing I wanted to point out was that this question of conveying voters to the poll was not a question on which we made any recommendation whatever. Why was this question brought up the other day? It was one of a number of questions which were made a condition by the party opposite of their acceptance of a proposal which they did not like
    2330
    and did not want, namely, the Alternative Vote, but it was one which was still more disliked below the Gangway and which the Liberals accepted only because they could not get the other method that they favoured. This proposal is brought into the Bill purely as a kind of party makeweight and without any regard for what is in the general interest of the people, which is that the greatest number of the people should have an opportunity of voting. It is an arbitrary proposal; it is a proposal which, on the whole, like all the other proposals that have emanated from that party, and indeed the whole spirit that underlies the Bill, is purely a party spirit, is one which has been put forward because those behind it think that on the whole they will benefit by it and that the party which I represent will get a very inadequate amount of benefit from it. The examples I have given from the county of Devon show quite clearly that it is a well thought out and carefully devised scheme to give them one small party advantage, if the proposal ever becomes law.
    Mr. O. STANLEY: The Home Secretary has certainly given a certain amount of pleasure to some of my hon. Friends on this side. I know a number of them who, during their enforecd absence from this House in the Whitsuntide Recess, would have found time hanging heavily on their hands, but they will now no doubt pace the boundaries of their constituencies with measuring chains and anxiously await the result. I find myself in the strange position, for the first time in two years, of having to thank the Government for doing something. On several occasions I have had reason to administer gentle reproof, which I must say has had no effect. I have called the Government the most inefficient, the most cowardly, and the most incompetent set of Ministers who ever sat on the Treasury Bench. Their acceptance of the Amendment in no way alters my opinion. But I must admit now that they have a further quality, and that is the quality of good nature.
    The acceptance of the Amendment has shocked the hon. Lady the Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson), because she has a logical mind. That is why she disagrees with the Government. Apparently she is unable to follow the

    2331
    high-sounding phrases which we have had from the Solicitor-General and from the Home Secretary, and which no doubt we would have had under more fortunate circumstances from the Parliamentary Secretary, as to the burning desire of many hon. Members opposite to remove every vestige of inequality in our electoral system, to see that no advantage whatever is given to wealth, and that men and women, whatever their position in life, have the same facilities for exercising the vote. The hon. Lady naturally asks why something which is an unjust and unrighteous privilege of the rich in an area of 399 square miles becomes a national interest in an area of 401 square miles. But we must be thankful for good things, whatever the reason may be which causes the offering. The proposal of the Government is so fantastic, it is based on principles so rotten, that we on this side welcome anything which pretends to whittle down its effect, which tends to destroy, the evil influence which it will have, and finally lessens the electoral advantage which hon. Members hope to get and which is their only object in supporting this proposal.
    Major LLEWELLIN: I rise to protest against the rather haphazard way in which we are altering the electoral law. If one comes to look at the Amendment, first of all one asks who is going to determine whether a constituency consists of under 400 square miles or over 400 square miles. There is no provision in the Bill to say who is to lay down whether a constituency just exceeds that area or is below it. That is left completely in the air by the Amendment. If the Home Secretary was convinced by some of the arguments during the Committee stage in favour of this point, it would have been well that he should, after careful consideration, have made some distinction, not so haphazard as this, between those constituencies that are to be allowed an unlimited number of cars and those that are to be restricted to one car per 1,000 voters, because it is clear that in a constituency of under 400 square miles there must be quite a number of instances where the polling station may be further away from the elector than in constituencies that happen to have an area of over 400 square miles.
    2332
    It is time for someone to protest. It is not a question of who has most cars. It is often a question of the people who understand best how to drive cars. At the last election, in my constituency, I happened to notice a car which was conducting Labour supporters to the poll. The driver was such an enthusiastic supporter of the Labour party that he had a large placard of the present Prime Minister on the front of the radiator. It happened to be a baby Austin, and so hot did the car get that the picture of the Prime Minister completely put that small car out of action during the course of a hot election. Therefore, it seems to me that the Amendment is not making any logical distinction at all. The distinction which ought to be drawn is the distinction between villages and polling stations which have to serve these isolated parts of the country. The present Amendment draws no such distinction. Instead of altering our electoral law in this illogical way, we ought to do it only after careful consideration. This is put forward quite obviously in the interests of the party opposite. It is not right to legislate in this way, because it is a process which may tend to be perpetuated by means of the Alternative Vote, where one party which relies on the support of another immediately accepts any Amendment put forward by that party. This is a most illogical way of dealing with the situation.
    Sir T. INSKIP: May I put a question which in all seriousness the House ought to consider? I have been looking at the maps of some constituencies which may illustrate the question as given in the Report of the Boundary Commission in 1917–18. Take my own constituency as an illustration, although it is not an illustration in an extreme form. It includes in its boundary two very large areas of water. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite cannot treat a serious question seriously, I hope the Solicitor-General will appreciate that this is a point of some importance. My constituency as measured by the Commission on the Redistribution of Seats in 1918 has an area very much larger than what one may call the landward part. Take a better illustration, the constituency of Northern Ayrshire represented by my hon. and gallant Friend. That includes a large area of water which extends to Bute, and if you

    2333
    measure that constituency in the proper way obviously it exceeds 400 square miles. I want to know whether that will come within the Amendment as now proposed or not. If so the more water you have the more motor cars you may have.
    We are dealing with an Amendment which has been accepted as a result of political reactions, not because it has any particular merit on the ground of logic or from any other point of view, and we ought therefore to consider the consequences which may follow. I could mention half a dozen other constituencies. The seat which I once had the honour to represent is not a county constituency, and therefore does not come within the proposal, but it illustrates the sort of question which may arise. West Bristol includes the islands in the estuary of the Severn, and the boundary runs right down the River Avon and includes a considerable portion of the estuary of the Severn. It is certainly in excess of 400 square miles. Whether I am right or not, it illustrates the questions which will arise, and I hope that before we conclude the Solicitor-General will answer the question as to whether there will be a statutory Schedule of the constituencies made so that everyone will know whether a constituency is 400 square miles or not in extent, and, secondly, whether the measurement will include areas of water, or will it be a measurement only of the landward portions of the constituencies.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: As the hon. and learned Member is aware, a return was made to this House by the Home Office in 1919, at the request of the House, and that return sets out the area in statute acres of every constituency in the country. If I may take the example which the hon. and learned Member mentioned, that of North Ayrshire, the return shows that the area is 262,000 acres, and therefore, if my arithmetic is correct, it would be just over 400 square miles, which I think would be 256,000 acres.
    Sir T. INSKIP: Is that the land, or does it include water?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That is the total area of the constituency.
    Sir T. INSKIP: With the leave of the House I should like to put another question and I assure the hon. and learned
    2334
    Gentleman that I am not in the least seeking to put a pettifogging or quibbling point. The document to which the Solicitor-General has referred is, of course, one of authority coming from the Home Office but it has not statutory weight, and it would certainly not be an authoritative document if the facts had been incorrectly ascertained. The Solicitor-General will confirm me in saying that you cannot refer to a document unless it is a Schedule to or in some way identified with an Act of Parliament, and, authoritative though that document may be as a piece of evidence, it will only be a piece of evidence. What candidates will require to know when evidence is given in a court of law is what are the actual facts as ascertained by reference to an Act of Parliament.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: As far as the hon. and learned Member's point regarding the inclusion of water areas is concerned, it is quite clear from the terms of the Amendment that the whole area of the constituency is included whether it is water or land. Regarding the figures in this report the hon. and learned Member will appreciate that I cannot say how the gentleman who wrote down these figures made his measurements, but I presume that they do give, as they state, the total area of each constituency in statute acres. I notice now that column 2 of this document includes "inland water" and that I think answers the question. This return was made as a result of the redistribution of 1918; it was made in December, 1919, and I imagine most people would be prepared to accept these figures as prima facie correct. No doubt if the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley) desires to spend his Whitsuntide holidays in the way he has suggested he will be able to see whether they are correct or not.
    Sir B. PETO: By the leave of the House, I also wish to put a question. The constituency which I represent includes the island of Lundy, which lies a considerable distance off the coast, and I want to know whether the Severn sea is to be regarded as inland water or not? I want to be assured, not by any document such as that to which the Solicitor-General refers, but by a Schedule to this

    2335
    ill, what is the precise meaning of "inland water".
    Mr. W. S. MORRISON: One result must follow from the acceptance by the Government of this Amendment. I think the House is grateful to the Solicitor-General for the answer which he gave to the question of my hon. and learned Friend when he told us that inland water would be included in the area of the Division. Obviously, no other definition could possibly be given, or else one would be forced to the necessity of estimating the surface area of mill ponds, duck ponds, and so on. As regards the second question put to him by my hon. and learned Friend, I doubt if the House will consider that his answer was quite so full or satisfactory. It is all very well to tell us that many people will accept as correct, and indeed as authoritative, the estimation of areas contained in the White Paper to which he has referred. No doubt people will accept it. But from the point of view of a Statute, which we are now considering, it is clear that if we are to have a workable and watertight scheme, we ought to have a Schedule to the Bill including those Divisions by name which are specifically exempted.
    That brings me to a more important consideration. We are adopting the rough and ready test of divisions with a certain surface area, and the reason the Government have acceded to the request of my right hon. Friend is because they realise that in these large areas there is difficulty in voting, but if we are going to have a Schedule with the exempted divisions included in it, why should we not take the opportunity of going to the real principle at the back of the Amendment, which is not one merely of area, but that of difficulty of voting? I say, from my own experience, that there are divisions which are large in area but which yet present less diffi-
    culty to the voter than many that are smaller in area.
    Take the example of divisions in the North of Scotland, where there is a huge surface area, but where in fact the population is clustered in one or two, or it may be a dozen, settlements and the rest of the country is uninhabited. In those cases there is less difficulty in voting than there is in a division, say, in Derbyshire, where you might have only 300 square miles, but the whole population is split up into tiny hamlets separated by ranges of hills or roads that are very difficult to traverse. I suggest that the proper way of dealing with this matter now is not simply to confine ourselves to areas in this way, but to go through the matter thoroughly and to leave out those divisions which, in the opinion of this House—and we can all bring a wide experience to bear on this matter—present such difficulties to the ordinary voter in registering his vote that it is desirable in the public interest that he should have this assistance. I make that suggestion, that the Government should take effective steps to carry out to the full the proposal which they have accepted now, in the spirit as well as in the letter.
    Sir DENNIS HERBERT: There is a point here of significance, which I am sure the Solicitor-General will realise. We are trying to settle the terms of a Statute, and if anybody—
    It being half-past Ten of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 3rd March, to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 205.

    Division No. 262.]

    AYES.

    [10.30 p.m.

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

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Bowen, J. W.

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

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Barr, James

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Bromley, J.

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

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

    Brooke, W.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Brothers, M.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Benson, G.

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

    Angell, Sir Norman

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Buchanan, G.

    Arnott, John

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Burgess, F. G.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

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

    Calne, Hall-, Derwent

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Cape, Thomas

    Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

    Raynes, W. R.

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

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Law, A. (Rossondale)

    Ritson, J.

    Chater, Daniel

    Lawrence, Susan

    Romeril, H. G.

    Church, Major A. G.

    Leach, W.

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Clarke, J. S.

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

    Rowson, Guy

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lees, J.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Leonard, W.

    Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Cove, William G.

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Lindley, Fred W.

    Sanders, W. S.

    Daggar, George

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Sandham, E.

    Dallas, George

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Longden, F.

    Scott, James

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Scurr, John

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    Lunn, William

    Sexton, Sir James

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Day, Harry

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    McElwee, A.

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    McEntee, V. L.

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Duncan, Charles

    McKinlay, A.

    Shinwell, E.

    Ede, James Chuter

    Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Edge, Sir William

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Edmunds, J. E.

    McShane, John James

    Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

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

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Elmley, Viscount

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Foot, Isaac

    Manning, E. L.

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

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

    Mansfield, W.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

    March, S.

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Marcus, M.

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Gill, T. H.

    Markham, S. F.

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Gossling, A. G.

    Marley, J.

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Gould, F.

    Marshall, Fred

    Stephen, Campbell

    Gray, Milner

    Mathers, George

    Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

    Matters, L. W.

    Strauss, G. R.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Maxton, James

    Sullivan, J.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Messer, Fred

    Sutton, J. E.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Middleton, G.

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Mills, J. E.

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

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Milner, Major J.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Montague, Frederick

    Tinker, John Joseph

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

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Townend, A. E.

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

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

    Vaughan, David

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Viant, S. P.

    Harbord, A.

    Mort, D. L.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Hardie, George D.

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Walker, J.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Murnin, Hugh

    Wallace, H. W.

    Haycock, A. W.

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Naylor, T. E.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Wellock, Wilfred

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

    Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

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

    Oldfield, J. R.

    West, F. R.

    Herriotts, J.

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Westwood, Joseph

    Hoffman, P. C.

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

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

    Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Palin, John Henry

    Wilkinton, Elien C.

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Paling, Wilfrid

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

    Palmer, E. T.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Isaacs, George

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Perry, S. F.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Jones, Llewellyn., F.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Phillips, Dr. Marion

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

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Potts, John S.

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Price, M. P.

    Kinley, J.

    Pybus, Percy John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Kirkwood, D.

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Albery, Irving James

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

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

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

    Balniel, Lord

    Boyce, Leslie

    Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Bracken, B.

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

    Beaumont, M. W.

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

    Broadbent, Colonel J.

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

    Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

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

    Atholl, Duchen of

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Atkinson, C.

    Bird, Ernest Roy

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

    Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Buchan, John

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    2338

    2339

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Butler, R. A.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Preston, Sir Walter Rueben

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Ramtbotham, H.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Remer, John R.

    Cattle Stewart, Earl of

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

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

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)

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

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

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

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

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbatton)

    Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Rothschild, J. de

    Christie, J. A.

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

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Inskip, Sir Thomas

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

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

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Savery, S. S.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Cranbourne, viscount

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

    Shepperton, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

    Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)

    Simms, Major-General J.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsay, Galnsbro)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Croom-Johnton, R. P.

    Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Smithers, Waldron

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Llewellin, Major J. J.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

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

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    Lockwood, Captain J. H.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Long, Major Hon. Eric

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

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

    Lymington, Viscount

    Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

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

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

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Dixey, A. C.

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

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

    Duckworth, G. A. V.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Thompson, Luke

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

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

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Marjoribanks, Edward

    Tinne, J. A.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

    Meller, R. J

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Ferguson, Sir John

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

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Fielden, E. B.

    Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Morris, Rhys Hopkins

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

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

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Muirhead, A. J.

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Galbraith, J. F. W

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

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

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

    Wolmer, Rt Hon. Viscount

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

    O'Connor, T. J.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

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

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grace, John

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Major Sir George Hennessy and Sir Frederick Thomson.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Penny, Sir George

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Question, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.

    Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded, successively, to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Consequential Amendments.)
    Amendment proposed: In page 5, line 6, at the end, to insert the words:
    "(4) For the words 'I have not voted at this General Election in respect of any
    qualification other than a residence qualification,' wherever those words occur, in Part 11 of the Second Schedule to the principle Act and wherever those words occur in the Fifth Schedule to the principal Act, there shall be substituted the words 'I have not voted at this General Election.'"—[Mr. Clynes.]
    Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
    The House divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 196.

    Division No. 263.]

    AYES.

    [10.43 p.m.

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

    Ammon, Charles George

    Barnes, Alfred John

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

    Angell, Sir Norman

    Barr, James

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Arnott, John

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

    Aske, Sir Robert

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

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

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Alpass, J. H.

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Benton, G.

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Potts, John S.

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Price, M. P.

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Kelly, W. T.

    Pybus, Percy John

    Bowen, J. W.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Kinley, J.

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Kirkwood, D.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Bromley, J.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

    Raynes, W. R.

    Brooke, W.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Brothers, M.

    Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

    Ritson, J.

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

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Romeril, H. G.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Law, A. (Rossendale)

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Buchanan, G.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Rothschild, J. de

    Burgess, F. G.

    Leach, W.

    Rowson, Guy

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

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Calne, Hall-, Derwent

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

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

    Cape, Thomas

    Lees, J.

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

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

    Leonard, W.

    Sanders, W. S.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Sandham, E.

    Chater, Daniel

    Lindley, Fred W.

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Church, Major A. G.

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Scott, James

    Clarke, J. S.

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Scurr, John

    Cluse, W. S.

    Longden, F.

    Sexton, Sir James

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Lunn, William

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Cove, William G.

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Daggar, George

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Dallas, George

    McElwee, A.

    Shinwell, E

    Dalton, Hugh

    McEntee, V. L.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    McKinley, A.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Day, Harry

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    McShane, John James

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

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

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Duncan, Charles

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Ede, James Chuter

    Manning, E. L.

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Mansfield, W.

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    March, S.

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Elmley, Viscount

    Marcus, M.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Foot, Isaac

    Markham, S. F.

    Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

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

    Marley, J.

    Strauss, G. R.

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

    Marshall, Fred

    Sullivan, J.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Mathers, George

    Sutton, J. E

    Gill, T. H.

    Matters, L. W.

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Gossling, A. G.

    Maxton, James

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

    Gould, F.

    Messer, Fred

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Gray, Milner

    Middleton, G.

    Tinker, John Joseph

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

    Millar, J. D.

    Townend, A. E.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Mills, J. E.

    Vaughan, David

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Milner, Major J.

    Viant, S. P.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Montague, Frederick

    Walkden, A. G.

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Morgan Dr. H. B.

    Walker, J.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Morris, Rhys Hopkins

    Wallace, H. W.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

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

    Watkins, F. C.

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

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Mort, D. L.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Harbord, A.

    Murnin, Hugh

    West, F. R.

    Hardie, George D.

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Westwood, Joseph

    Harris, Percy A.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Haycock, A. W.

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

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

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

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

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

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Herriotts, J.

    Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Palin, John Henry

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Paling, Wilfrid

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

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Palmer, E. T.

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Young. R. S. (Islington, North)

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

    Perry, S. F.

    Isaacs, George

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Phillips, Dr. Marion

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.

    Jones, Llewellyn., F.

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    NOE

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

    Balniel, Lord

    Albery, Irving James

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

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

    Atkinson, C.

    Beaumont, M. W.

    Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

    Bellaire, Commander Cariyon

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

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

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

    Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

    2342

    2343

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

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

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    O'Connor, T. J.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

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

    Peake, Capt. Osbert

    Boyce, Leslie

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Penny, Sir George

    Bracken, B.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Bran, Captain Sir William

    Grace, John

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Preston, Sir Walter Rueben

    Broadbent, Colonel J.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Ramsbotham, H.

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

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

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

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Remer, John R.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

    Buchan, John

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)

    Butler, R. A.

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

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

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Cattle Stewart, Earl of

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

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

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

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

    Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

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

    Savery, S. S.

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

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Simms, Major-General J.

    Christie, J. A.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

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

    Skelton, A. N.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Smithers, Waldron

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Colman, N. C. D.

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

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitny)

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

    Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Llewellin, Major J. J.

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

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Thompson, Luke

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

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

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

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Lockwood, Captain J. H.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Long, Major Hon. Eric

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

    Lymington, Viscount

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

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

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

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

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

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

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Duckworth, G. A. V.

    Marjoribanks, Edward

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Meller, R. J.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

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

    Milne, Wardlaw., J. S.

    Wood. Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Everard, W. Lindsay

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

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

    Ferguson, Sir John

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Fielden, E. B.

    Muirhead, A. J.

    Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir Victor Warrender.

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

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

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    CLAUSE 8.—(Short title, citation, extent and repeal.)
    Amendments made: In page 5, line 8, after the word "among," insert the words "and construed as one with."
    In page 5, line 12, leave out Subsection (3).—[Mr. Clynes.]

    FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Alternative Vote Rules.)
    Amendment proposed: In page 6, line 24, leave out the word "other" and insert instead thereof the word "un-excluded."—[Mr. Clynes.]
    Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
    The House divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 190.

    Division No. 264.]

    AYES.

    [10.54 p.m.

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

    Ammon, Charles George

    Barnes, Alfred John

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

    Angell, Sir Norman

    Barr, James

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Arnott, John

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

    Aske, Sir Robert

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

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

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Alpass, J. H.

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Benson, G.

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Jones, Llewellyn., F.

    Potts, John S.

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Pybus, Percy John

    Bowen, J. W.

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Bromley, J.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Raynes, W. R.

    Brooke, W.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Brothers, M.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Ritson, J.

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

    Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

    Romerll, H. G.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Burgess, F. G.

    Law, A. (Rossendale)

    Rothschild, J. de

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

    Lawrence, Susan

    Rowson, Guy

    Caine, Hall., Dement

    Leach, W.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cape, Thomas

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

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

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

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lees, J.

    Sanders, W. S.

    Chater, Daniel

    Leonard, W.

    Sandham, E.

    Church, Major A. G.

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Clarke, J. S.

    Lindley, Fred W.

    Scott, James

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Scurr, John

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Sexton, Sir James

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Longden, F.

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Cove, William G.

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Lunn, William

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Dangar, George

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Dallas, George

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

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Dalton, Hugh

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Shinwell, E.

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    McElwee, A.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    McEntee, V. L.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    McKinlay, A.

    Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

    Day, Harry

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Stich, Charles H.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Duncan, Charles

    McShane, John James

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Ede, James Chuter

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

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    Manning, E. L.

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Elmley, Viscount

    Mansfield, W.

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Foot, Isaac

    March, S.

    Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

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

    Marcus, M.

    Strauss, G. R.

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

    Markham, S. F.

    Sullivan, J.

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

    Marley, J.

    Sutton, J. E.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Marshall, Fred

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Gill, T. H.

    Mathers, George

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

    Gossling, A. G.

    Matters, L. W.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Gould, F.

    Messer, Fred

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Gray, Milner

    Middleton, G.

    Townend, A. E.

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

    Millar, J. D.

    Vaughan, David

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Mills, J. E.

    Viant, S. P.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Milner, Major J.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Montague, Frederick

    Walker, J.

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Morris, Rhys Hopkins

    Watkins, F. C.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

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

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

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

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Mort, D. L.

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    West, F. R.

    Harbord, A.

    Murnin, Hugh

    Westwodd, Joseph

    Hardie, George D.

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

    Haycock, A. W.

    Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

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

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

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

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

    Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Herriotts, J.

    Palin, John Henry

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Paling, Wilfrid

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

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Palmer, E. T.

    Wocd, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Perry, S. F.

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Isaacs, George

    Phillips, Dr. Marion

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Atkinson, C.

    Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

    Albery, Irving James

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

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

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

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)

    Balniel, Lord

    Boothby, R. J. G.

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

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Beaumont, M. W.

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

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

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

    Boyce, Leslie

    2346

    2347

    Bracken, B.

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

    O'Connor, T. J.

    Brass, Captain Sir William

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

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    O'Neill, Sir H.

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

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

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

    Grace, John

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Buchan, John

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Preston, Sir Walter Rueben

    Butler, R. A.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Broadbent, Colonel J.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Remer, John H.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Richardson. Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)

    Castle Stewart, Earl of

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

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

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Ross, Ronald D.

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

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

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

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Christie, J. A.

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

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Savery, S. S.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Inskip, Sir Thomas

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

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

    Simms, Major-General J.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Skelton, A. N.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

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

    Smithers, Waldron

    Cranbourne, Viscount

    Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Stanley, Lora (Fylde)

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Llewellin, Major J. J.

    Stanley, Hon. O (Westmorland)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

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

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

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    Lockwood, Captain J. H.

    Thompson, Luke

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

    Lymington, Viscount

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

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

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

    Tinne, J. A.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Duckworth, G. A. V.

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Marjoribanks, Edward

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

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

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Meller, R. J.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Ferguson, Sir John

    Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Fielden, E. B.

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

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

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

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Muirhead, A. J.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

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

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

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

    Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.

    Further Amendments made: In page 6, line 31, leave out the words "unexcluded candidates," and insert instead thereof the words:
    "that one of the unexcluded candidates next in order of the voters preference."
    In page 6, line 32, leave out the words "choices for some one or other of the unexcluded candidates," and insert instead thereof the words:
    "or subsequent choices for that unexcluded candidate and of counting ballot papers so transferred as votes given to the candidate to whom they are transferred."
    In page 6, line 35, at the end, insert the words, "or until only two candidates remain unexcluded."—[Mr. Clynes.]
    Amendment proposed: In page 6, line 3V, at the end, to insert the words:
    "(5) The votes reckoned at any count in respect of any candidate shall be taken to be the votes counted to that candidate at the previous count with the addition of the votes transferred to him at the count in question."—[Mr. Clynes.]
    Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
    The House divided: Ayes, 231; Noes, 185.
    Further Amendments made: In page 6,
    line 40, after the word "excluded," to insert the words "who has";
    In page 6, line 40, leave out the words "whose votes are";
    In page 6, line 43, at the end, insert the words:
    "(6) If on the final count at which only two candidates remain unexcluded there is an equality of votes, that candidate shall he declared elected who has the greater number of first preference votes, but if there is no difference in this respect between the two candidates the returning officer, if a registered elector for the constituency, may give a vote to one of the candidates, and that candidate shall be declared elected.
    (7) Nothing in these rules shall require the returning officer to reject as invalid or void for uncertainty any ballot paper which
    2352
    is so marked as to indicate the intention of the voter to vote for any candidate as his first choice or to reject any ballot paper by reason only that no effective second or subsequent choice or a subsequent choice in excess of the valid number of preferences is indicated thereon."—[Mr. Clynes.]

    TITLE.
    Amendment made: In page 1, line 6, leave out the words "University constituencies and".—[Mr. Clynes.]
    Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 1, after the word "registration," to insert the words "prohibiting plural voting."—[Mr. Clynes.]
    Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
    The House divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 181.

    Division No. 265.]

    AYES.

    [11.6 p.m.

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

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

    Arnott, John

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

    Alpass, J. H.

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Amnion, Charles George

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

    Angell, Sir Norman

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Potts, John S.

    Barr, James.

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Price, M. P.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

    Pybus, Percy John

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

    Isaacs, George

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Benson, G.

    Jones, Llewellyn-, F.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Raynes, W. R.

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashlord)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Kelly, W. T.

    Ritson, J.

    Bowen, J. W.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Romeril, H. G.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Rothschild, J. de

    Bromley, J.

    Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

    Rowson, Guy

    Brooke, W.

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Brothers, M.

    Law, A. (Rossendale)

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

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

    Lawrence, Susan

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Leach, W.

    Sanders, W. S.

    Burgess, F. G.

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

    Sandham, E.

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

    Lees, J.

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Calne, Hall-, Derwent

    Leonard, W.

    Scott James

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

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Scurr, John

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lindley, Fred W.

    Sexton, Sir James

    Chater, Daniel

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Church, Major A. G.

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Clarke, J. S.

    Longden, F.

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lunn, William

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Shinwell, E.

    Cove, William G.

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

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Simmons, C. J.

    Daggar, George

    McElwee, A.

    Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

    Dallas, George

    McEntee, V. L.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Dalton, Hugh

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    McShane, John James

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Day, Harry

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

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    Manning, E. L.

    Sorenen, R.

    Duncan, Charles

    Mansfield, W.

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Ede, James Chuter

    March, S.

    Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Marcus, M.

    Strauss, G. R.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Markham, S. F.

    Sullivan, J.

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    Marley, J.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Elmley, Viscount

    Marshall, Fred

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Foot, Isaac

    Mathers, George

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

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

    Matters, L. W.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

    Messer, Fred

    Tinker, John Joseph

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

    Middleton, G.

    Townend, A. E.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Millar, J. D.

    Vaughan, David

    Gill, T. H.

    Mills, J. E.

    Viant, S. P.

    Gossling, A. G.

    Miler, Major J.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Gould, F.

    Montague, Frederick

    Walker, J.

    Gray, Milner

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

    Morris, Rhys Hopkins

    Watkins, F. C.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

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

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Mort, D. L.

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    West, F. R.

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Murnin, Hugh

    Westwood, Joseph

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

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Harbord, A.

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Hardie, George D.

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Harris, Percy A.

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

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Haycock, A. W.

    Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

    Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Palin, John Henry

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

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

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

    Perry, S. F.

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    Herriotts, J.

    Pethick-Lawrenee, F. W.

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Phillips, Dr. Marlon

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Atkinson, C.

    Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

    Albery, Irving James

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdlay)

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

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

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

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)

    Balniel, Lord

    Boothby, R. J. G.

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

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Beaumont M. W.

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

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

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

    Boyce, Leslie

    2350

    2351

    Bracken, B.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    Brase, Captain Sir William

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Grace, John

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Broadbent, Colonel J.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Preston, Sir Walter Rueben

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

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Butler, R. A.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Remer, John R.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Cattle Stewart, Earl of

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

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

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

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Salmon, Major I.

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

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

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Christie, J. A.

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

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Savery, S. S.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Inksip, Sir Thomas

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

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

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

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

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

    Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

    Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Stanley, Hon. O (Westmorland)

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Llewellin, Major J. J.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

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

    Dalkeith, Earl of

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

    Thompson, Luke

    Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

    Lockwood, Captain J. H.

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

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    Lymington, Viscount

    Tinne, J. A

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

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

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Todd, Capt. A. J.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Duckworth, G. A. V.

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Marjoribanks, Edward

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

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

    Meller, R. J.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Milne, Wardlaw., J. S.

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Ferguson, Sir John

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

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Fielden, E. B.

    Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

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

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Muirhead, A. J.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

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

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    O'Connor, T. J.

    Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Division No. 266.]

    AYES.

    [11.17 p.m.

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

    Hayday, Arthur

    Phillips, Dr. Marion

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

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

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

    Potts, John S.

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

    Herriotts, J.

    Price, M. P.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Pybus, Percy John

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Angell, Sir Norman

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Arnott, John

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph

    Raynes, W. R.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Isaacs, George

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Ritson, J.

    Barr, James

    Jones, Llewellyn., F.

    Rameril, H. G.

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

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

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Rothschild, J. de

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Rowson, Guy

    Benson, G.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

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

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

    Sanders, W. S.

    Bowen, J. W.

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Sandham, E.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Law, A. (Rossendale)

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Lawrence, Susan

    Scott, James

    Bromley, J.

    Leach, W.

    Scurr, John

    Brooke, W.

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

    Sexton, Sir James

    Brothers, M.

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

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

    Lees, J.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Leonard, W.

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Burgess, F. G.

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

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

    Lindley, Fred W.

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Caine, Hall-, Derwent

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Shinwell, E.

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

    Long bottom, A. W.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Longden, F.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Chater, Daniel

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

    Clarke, J. S.

    Lunn, William

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

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

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Cove, William G.

    McElwee, A.

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    McEntee, V. L.

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Daggar, George

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Dallas, George

    Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

    Sorensen, R.

    Dalton, Hugh

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    McShane, John James

    Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

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

    Strauss, G. R.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Sullivan, J.

    Day, Harry

    Manning, E- L.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Mansfield, W.

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    March, S.

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

    Duncan, Charles

    Marcus, M.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Ede, James Chuter

    Markham, S. F.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Marley, J.

    Townend, A. E.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Marshall, Fred

    Vaughan, David

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    Mathers, George

    Viant, S. P.

    Elmley, Viscount

    Matters, L. W.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Foot, Isaac

    Messer, Fred

    Walker, J.

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

    Middleton, G.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

    Millar, J. D.

    Watkins, F. C.

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

    Mills, J. E.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Milner, Major J.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Gill, T. H.

    Montague, Frederick

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Gossling, A. G.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    West, F. R.

    Gould, F.

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

    Westwood, Joseph

    Gray, Milner

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

    Mort, D. L.

    Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Muggeridge, H. T.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Murnin, Hugh

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

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

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

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

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

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

    Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

    Harbord, A.

    Palin, John Henry

    Hardie, George D.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Harris, Percy A.

    Perry, S. F.

    Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.

    Haycock, A. W.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

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

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

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

    Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)

    Athell, Duchess of

    Balniel, Lord

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

    Atkinson, C.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    2354

    2355

    Beaumont, M. W.

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

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

    Betterton, Sir Henry B.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonil Francis E.

    O'Connor, T. J.

    Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    O'Neill, Sir H.

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Preston, Sir Walter Rueben

    Boyce, Leslie

    Grace, John

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Bracken, B.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Remer, John R.

    Broadbent, Colonel J.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

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

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)

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

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Redd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Butler, R. A.

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

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

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Campbell, E. T.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Castle Stewart, Earl of

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester,. City)

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

    Savery, S. S.

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

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

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

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)

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

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Skelton, A N.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)

    Inskip, Sir Thomas

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Christie, J. A

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

    Smithers, Waldron

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Lane Fox, Rt. Hon. George R.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

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

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

    Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

    Thompson, Luke

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Little, Graham., Sir Ernest

    Thomson, Sir F.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Llewellin, Major J. J.

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

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

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

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Lockwood, Captain J. H.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Lymington, Viscount

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Dalkeith, Earl of

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

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Warnender, Sir Victor

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

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

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Wells, Sydney R.

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

    Marjoribanks, Edward

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Duckworth, G. A. V.

    Meller, R. J.

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Milne, Wardlaw., J. S.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

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

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

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

    Sir George Penny and Captain

    Ferguson, Sir John

    Muirhead, A. J.

    Sir George Bowyer.

    Fielden, E. B.

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

    Bill to be read the Third time upon Tuesday, 2nd June.

  POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
  2356
  I move the rejection of this Bill in the hope that some Member of the Government may be able to give some explanation as to why the Bill is necessary. The only explanations that we have had so far were in speeches that did not give good reasons for the Bill, but which gave reasons rather why we should not have the Bill. The Assistant Postmaster-General, in the opening speech on the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill, gave lots of reasons why we should not have it. He told us what a splendid postal and telephone system we had, that we were the third telegraph nation in the world, and that London was the third city in the world, only surpassed by New York and

  2357
  Chicago. I am not disputing those facts, and I am not saying that this money ought not to be spent; I am merely inquiring whether we need to spend the money and whether there is anyone on the Front Bench opposite who is able to administer this money if we grant it to the Government.
  Last night, on this Bill, I tried to put down an Amendment to limit the length of time for which this proposal to raise money should operate. It is conceivable—and I believe the argument has got into the publication known as the Liberal Yellow Book—that by developing telephones to-day you may do good. If there is plenty of money, and if there is a large number of people out of work, I can see that there may be a great deal of good in using this money for the development of the telephone system. I do not think that this is as good a use for the money as you could possibly find for it, because there is nothing that is much more objectionable than having to use the telephone. To my mind, it is a most unpleasant form of communication and one which in this country causes you to waste a colossal amount of time, but that is because of its bad administration. I admit that two years ago, when we had an efficient Postmaster-General, it was not so bad. If the Government are going to justify taking £32,000,000 of national money, which must be taken out of trade, for the development of telephones, they will have to put up the strongest possible case for it.
  Can we be assured that this money has to be paid back in 20 years and that there is any chance of the whole of it returning in due course to the funds from which it is being taken? We ought to have a clear assurance on that point. Another reason why I am justified in moving the rejection of the Bill is that at no time during the progress of the Measure have we had a representative of the Treasury present. When we are dealing with a large sum of money we might at least have some guarantee from the Treasury that there will be effective administration, and that the Treasury will look into the expenditure carefully. Under this Bill there is a limit of £32,000,000. The Assistant-Postmaster-General told us on Second Reading that he had £2,000,000 in hand. At the
  2358
  present rate of expenditure that ought to carry him on for two or three months. By the end of that time we may know the case for this Bill.
  If the Government can give me a real reason to show that they are doing something to develop trade and industry, I will not take this matter to a Division. If I could trust right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite to handle money, I should not be forced to take this line. I know I would not be justified in handing this money over to them, and I could not go to my constituents and say that I voted for handing over money to the most incompetent individuals who ever sat on the Front Bench. Not one of them would expect me to do a thing like that, and if I said that they were competent to look after half a crown, they would doubt my word. I do not want the kind of woolly speeches that we had on Friday and last night. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad that hon. Members opposite agree with me. They are apparently as dissatisfied as I am at what has been happening. I hope that the Postmaster-General will even at this last moment get up and make some case in favour of the Bill. I wish to make it clear that I am not against telephone development, that I wish for the best telephone development; but I move the rejection of the Bill because I think we have an incompetent Postmaster-General and Assistant Postmaster-General, who are letting their staff go back upon the standards reached a few years ago, and that there is no justification for our granting more money.
  Mr. BEAUMONT: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I do this not because I am opposed to the development of telephones, but because I am opposed to the further waste of money on their development under the present grossly inefficient system. I might not feel so strongly on this matter if there were any signs of repentance on the part of the representatives of the Post Office, but when the late Postmaster-General, who has now transferred his inactivities to the Board of Education, gets up, as he did in the Recess, and talks about his gloriously efficient department, it is time one or two voices were raised in this House on behalf of the un-

  2359
  fortunate telephone user and the unfortunate taxpayer. While telephones remain under the present grossly inefficient system £32,000,000 spent on their development will be money absolutely poured down the drain. I was pained by the speech of my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) when he spoke last night upon the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for West Dorset (Major Colfox), who moved to reduce the Vote. I have always respected my Noble Friend as being the one person who, when he was in office, had the courage to show up the incompetency and inefficiency of the system. He was very much attacked for those speeches, and I admire him enormously for the courage he showed in standing up to his point of view, but I was pained to hear him last night supporting even an extra £5,000,000 being spent on this inefficient system.
  We are told of the wonders of our telephone and telegraph service and how we are third, in point of numbers, as compared with certain other countries. Numbers are no criterion of efficiency. People in this country have the telephone not because they think it is good or efficient, but because of the requirements of the age in which we live. People have got to have the telephone, however bad it is. I remember that during the last General Election, when the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill)—I think it was he—promised large extensions of telephones in the rural areas, many people in my district replied, in effect, "Thank you for nothing. It is a rotten institution, for which we are grossly overcharged, and we would not have it as a gift." That is the attitude of a great many people towards the telephones of the country. I have had the good fortune or misfortune to spend a considerable time in countries on the Continent, and I have never known any telephone system there which was so rife with delays, wrong numbers and breakdowns as the telephone system of this country.
  Mr. HALL-CAINE: Germany!
  Mr. BEAUMONT: Germany! It is infinitely better there. The hon. Member may shake his head. It is a point on which we may differ, but from my per-
  2360
  sonal experience I consider the telephone system of Germany, from the point of view of actual efficiency, speed in getting into touch with the person at the other end, is infinitely better than ours. I am not speaking about value for money, because I am not certain of the charges in Germany. That is definitely my experience. I have not touched upon the question of actual value for money, for the reasons which I have given, but I am certain of this, that there is one thing, and one thing only, that is wrong with the telephone system. The fault does not lie in the personality of various Postmasters-General, as has been suggested, but in the fundamental principle that, when the State touches business, it always makes a mess of it. I am perfectly straight, because any more money thrown into the gutter after the State has been mismanaging a concern, is absolutely useless. To continue State inefficiency at this moment, when we need every penny we can get to put our industries right, is absolute idiocy. The Motion for reduction is absolutely justified. No further money should be spent until the telephone service has been put on a proper and efficient basis, which can only be done on a system of private enterprise.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: For one reason only, I do not support the Amendment that has been moved by my hon. Friend from this side of the House. I concur with them in feeling very doubtful as to whether the country will get value for this money; the reasons why I am doubtful I have made plain on more than one occasion. Briefly, those reasons are, that it is perfectly impossible to get value for money so long as the Post Office remains a Department of State. The reason that I do not feel disposed to support the rejection of the Bill is because I have a good deal of faith—and I say it as a frank gesture to a political enemy—in the hon. and gallant Gentleman who at present occupies the position of Postmaster-General. I believe that he approaches his duties' with an open mind. I have been very interested to observe lately that, while questions of the transference of the Post Office to a public utility company have been frequently mentioned, he has never closed the door upon that as a solution of Post Office development.

  2361
  He has wisely come to his office prepared to consider the different alternatives. Respecting his loyalty to his Department, we can only conclude that he is as conscious as are many of us on this side of the shortcomings of the Department, and of the system which makes that Department so valuable. There is one thing about which, if he will not mind, I should like to counsel him at the outset, and that is not to let the miasma of this Department settle on him at an early stage of his career as its political representative. It is the most dangerous Department in the Government. You get that miasma of complacency and self-satisfaction which has been displayed by Postmaster-General after Postmaster-General for the last 50 years. I detected traces of it in the speech of the Assistant Postmaster-General last Friday. He was taking great credit for the fact that a letter could be delivered in Aberdeen on the next day after that on which it was posted, forgetting that he was really giving credit to the private enterprise that runs the railways, which alone enables the Post Office to perform that function.
  Two or three rather appropriate incidents have occurred within my own personal experience since the hon. Gentleman made that speech. I would ask him whether he knows that, if you post a letter at Newbury at four o'clock on Sunday afternoon, it does not reach Winchester, only 20 miles away, before 11 o'clock on the following morning—it is not delivered by the first poet on the Monday morning; and whether he is aware that that is considerably slower than the stage coach used to be on that route 100 years ago? It may be news to the Post Office, but very considerable developments have taken place in the realm of transport since 1832. There have been the locomotive, the petrol engine, the aeroplane, and various other developments, which really do justify us in expecting some little greater speed than was attained by the Post Office in 1832, whereas as a matter of fact the rate of progress appears to be a good deal slower.
  Take another instance, which is particularly germane to this Bill. The Postmaster-General, in introducing the Bill, stated that he was not asking for more because he had no less than 25 per cent. of spare parts; so that, with this 25 per cent.
  2362
  of spare parts to carry on with, he had a capital surplus of that extent to launch him on his new programme. I can tell him of a case within my personal knowledge in which an extension telephone, which was ordered more than two months ago in an area not 30 miles from London, was only fixed the day before yesterday—an ordinary Plan III extension; and that is with 25 per cent. of spare parts with which he is going to accelerate the programme and assist in the development of the organisation.
  My third instance concerns me personally. I had the misfortune to leave my sponge bag behind at the week-end, and directed that it should be posted to me from my home, 70 miles away; and it was posted at half-past eight on Monday morning. It was a package weighing 1 pound 4 ounces, and it did not arrive in London till midday on the following day. I will not pursue this matter in detail, except to this extent, that it indicates that there is no ground for complacency on the part of the Postmaster-General in regard to the system which he is administering. He is credited by Parliament with this large sum of money; he comes to his office with, as we hope, an open mind, prepared to assist in developing a system which very sadly needs developing. We can assure him from this side of the House that there is widespread public discontent and dissatisfaction with the system that he is administering. There is a burden upon him to administer this money properly; we look forward to reports of progress from time to time as to how he is getting on; and only if he makes a successful use of this money will he justify the confidence which Parliament is reposing in him in voting him the money which we propose to vote to-night.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Attlee): I rise to answer one or two points which have been put to me. The matter has already been very fully discussed, but the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) asked me a question regarding the acceleration of the programme put forward by the Lord Privy Seal when I was not a member of the Government. The position was that owing to the fall in prices there was a certain amount of extra money in hand, a considerable amount having been returned as a result of contracts depend-

  2363
  ing on the cost of material and so forth, and the programme laid down by our predecessors had not been fully developed. Therefore, when my right hon. Friend came in he was able to take steps which did, in fact, accelerate the programme of work to the extent of £750,000 in the first year and about the same in the second year. With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), I would point out that the hon. Member lost a great deal by not being here at the first discussion of the Bill, because he could not inform his mind as fully as he otherwise would have been able to do.
  Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I was here the whole of Friday and listened to every word that the Assistant Postmaster-General said and to a great deal of the speeches of many other hon. Members.
  Mr. ATTLEE: I was referring to an earlier occasion when the main discussion on the Financial Resolution took place and when these points were brought out more fully. The hon. Member asked me two points. I was not quite clear as to the first point, but the answer is in the affirmative. As to the spare parts in hand, two months have passed since the Financial Resolution was first introduced. If the hon. Member was running a business I do not think he would wait to ask for more money until he has entirely run out. I think he will understand now that the Amendment he moved last night was exactly in the contrary sense to that which he intends.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont) consisted almost entirely of invective and was marked by a total absence of facts. We are now geting a new generation in this House, and it is clear that the hon. Member could not have had any experience of the old telephone system before it was taken over by the State in 1912; otherwise, he would not have made such remarks. I thank the hon. Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) for his kind remarks, though I do not think his speeches on this subject are quite up to his usual form, because he seems to have had a very unfortunate experience with telephones which has rather warped his whole outlook. Next time he speaks on this subject, I hope he will go into more detail. I trust the
  2364
  House will not want to sit very late to-night as the subject has already been debated so fully before.
  Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The hon. Gentleman said just now that it was two months ago when he had £2,000,000 in hand. I see from Friday's Debate it was still there last Friday. Has he spent that sum since then?
  Mr. ATTLEE: That is rather a debating point. The resolution was introduced on the facts at that time in regard to the money in hand. The Resolution stated the position as it then was, but it was nearly two months ago that the Resolution was first introduced. In any case it is not a point of great substance as the Bill still has to go to another place, and, therefore, the hon. Member may rest assured that then; will be no waste and that the money will all be used.
  Mr. BEAUMONT: The hon. Gentleman referred to a total absence of facts in my speech, last night. That is because of the late hour. If I give him the facts, will he pay rather more attention to them than his predecessor, who paid none?
  Mr. ATTLEE: I am not aware what facts were put before my predecessor or what attention he gave to them but, if the hon. Member will give me the facts, I will certainly look into them.
  Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Dunnico): May I point out that this is the Third Reading of a Bill, the purpose of which is to spend money on development. This is not the occasion to discuss matters of administration. There will be other opportunities for that.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: It may be to the advantage of the Postmaster-General to hear the view of one who has had some experience of telephone systems in other countries. First may I remind the House that on Friday last the Assistant Postmaster-General made the following statement:
  "It will probably be as well if hon. and right hon. Members understand that all of the £32,000,000 referred to in this Bill, with the exception of £2,800,000, is for the telephone service. As was stated in the Debate on the Financial Resolution, we have about £2,000,000 in hand."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1931; col. 1495, Vol. 252.]

  2365
  So that my hon. Friend who does such good work in the House and is so useful in putting hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench in their place, from time to time, is, it appears, not a child but a very grown-up person who knows better what, the Assistant Postmaster-General says than the Postmaster-General himself does.
  12 m.
  I always deprecate running down anything that belongs to this country simply for the sake of doing so. I will not say our system is extraordinarily good, because it is not. It is a useful, though from time to time a most irritating, system but, generally speaking, there is very little difference between this and other countries. For 21 years I did all my business through the longdistance telephone. [An HON. MEMBER: "You were a bookmaker."] Even if I was it is a good thing to be a successful bookmaker. In my case it would have been a good test of a telephone. I have also used the long-distance telephone here and I find that this country is quite comparable with any other. We hear of new brooms sweeping clean. The new Postmaster-General has had the great advantage of a tremendous amount of very friendly criticism from these benches on all aspects of his administration. I sincerely hope that he will not forget all the things he has heard during these Debates, but that he will ponder over them and see if he can adopt some of the suggestions which have been made in good faith in the most friendly spirit. Suggestions have been made, not in a party spirit, but in a friendly way, to help a new man, who, we all hope, Will succeed in his career. The sum of £32,000,000 requires a lot of spending, and it needs careful spending. As a good Scot and one who has had a great deal of experience in having to spend other people's money, I know how necessary it is to be very careful. I sincerely hope due care will be taken over every pound that is spent, because we are here for the purpose of looking after the interests of the taxpayers. When they hear that this large sum of money has been voted on the day before Whitsun holidays they will want to know the reason why. They will want to know
  2366
  if we were all in our places and did our duty by telling the Postmaster-General that we were going to go through the estimates very thoroughly to see that everything was done in the interests of the taxpayers. I should like to say that, although the Government are well represented and the official Opposition are well represented, there is only one representative of the Liberal party present.
  Mr. PHILIP OLIVER: On a point of personal explanation. May I point out that the Liberal party is represented as well proportionately as the party of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. CAMPBELL: I cannot go into that matter. I should be out of order if I attempted to discuss the proportional representation of the Liberal party at this hour of the night. I have no doubt whatever that after the next General Election we shall see a similar number of Liberals in the House, but, being out of Order, I do not intend to pursue the matter. I hope that the Postmaster-General will take these criticisms to heart and that next year, when the estimates of the Department come before us, we shall be able to congratulate him, if he is still in his place, upon a better administration.
  Mr. SMITHERS: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  I wish to be allowed to give my reason for so doing.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Dunnico): The hon. Member apparently forgets that the House is not in Committee.
  Mr. SMITHERS: Then may I move "That the Debate be now adjourned?" I wish, in all seriousness, to raise a very important point and to give my reasons for desiring to move that Motion. In the first place, the Bill is a Money Bill involving the expenditure of £32,000,000 sterling. The word "Treasury" occurs in every Clause and in nearly every Subsection of the Bill. It says:
  "The Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund."
  "The Treasury may, if they think fit."
  "The Treasury may also, if they think fit."
  The Treasury is mainly responsible for securing and handing over the money to

  2367
  the Post Office, and I desire to protest, because there is not a member of the Treasury present on the Front Bench opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "There is."] Then I will ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury if he will answer two questions. I understand that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is busy with the Budget. Therefore I hope the Patronage Secretary will answer my questions. In Clause 1 (2) it is provided that the Treasury may
  "borrow by means of terminable annuities for a term not exceeding 20 years."
  Why is the issue of these annuities limited to 20 years? At the present time the rate of money is very cheap, and loans for the Post Office could be obtained for this purpose for 45 or 50 years at a lower rate than for 20 years. I hope the Patronage Secretary will be able to answer the question. I have never heard him make a speech in the House, except to say, "To-morrow." Clause 1 (4) says:
  (4) The Treasury may also, if they think fit, for the same purpose borrow money by means of the issue of Exchequer Bonds, and the Capital Expenditure.
  I have always thought that there was some limit of the amount of interest which these bonds can bear. Will the hon. Gentleman explain why there is a limit? There is another reason why the Financial Secretary to the Treasury should be here. The Postmaster-General is new to his position, and he cannot know all the details of these financial clauses. Moreover, there might well be questions which have arisen since the Financial Resolution was discussed, which require an answer from the Financial Secretary. It is treating the House with scant courtesy that the Treasury is not represented to-night by someone who can deal with these financial matters.
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I beg to second the Motion.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Under Standing Order No. 23, I must exercise my power of discretion and decline to accept the Motion.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stands part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Order of Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I wish to detain the House for a few moments, in order to ask a few questions, before we give a final Reading to this Bill. It may be recalled that, on the Second Reading and, I think, on the Committee stage, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland expressed very warm approval of the proposals which are contained in this Measure, and which we will, by passing, extend for another five years. The right hon. Gentleman said that the reason for the extension arose from requests from various local authorities, many of whom have taken considerable advantage of its provisions. The right hon. Gentleman stated, I believe, with truth and accuracy, that this Act, so far as Scotland was concerned and, in a measure, in England, has done a great deal for providing improved and healthier housing accommodation for a large number of rural workers. I Was glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland emphasised that one of the advantages of the Act was that it was making further and better accommodation for the people who required it, and that it did not involve, as was the case with the Wheatley Act, renovated houses being occupied by people other than the class for whom they were intended. He also said that the effect of this Act would be to increase housing from year to year. He generally approved it, in the warmest terms. But the Minister of Health took a very different view, although his name is on the back of this Measure. In case any words of mine might be open to misconception, I would desire to refer to a speech which was made on that occasion, when the question I want to put to the Minister of Health was put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones), who, in expressing strong disapproval of the speech of the Minister of Health belittling this Act, said:
  "The real reason why this Act has not been pushed throughout the country is that this prejudice has been created. I know

  2369
  about what I am talking.… I know the villages and I have had to carry out these things in my own administration of estates. I have had experience of the prejudice which exists against this Act. It appears to the critics in the rural districts that this is a grant to landlords to enable them to increase the value of their property, and it is not regarded, particularly by members of the Parliamentary Secretary's party on local authorities, throughout the country as a help to housing, but rather as a means of propping up impoverished landlords in dying privileges."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st April, 1931; col. 845; Vol. 251.]
  The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, when he replied to these observations, made a disparaging reference to this Act of Parliament. That is very strange because his name is down to this Bill, which asks the House to extend that Act for a further period of five years. He said:
  "I withdraw nothing of what I said about this Act on its passage through the House. I did not ask for the Act in its present form. I opposed it in all its stages, and, if I were in Opposition now and a Bill of this kind came along again, I should do precisely the same thing."
  The question I want to put is: is that going to be the attitude of the Minister of Health towards the Act? If so, it is a strange attitude to adopt. Later he said:
  "I do not understand this paeon of praise about this wretched little Measure, with its poor paltry result, that we have had from the right hon. Member for West Woolwich."—[OFFICIAL REPOHT, 21st April, 1931; col. 832, Vol. 251.]
  That is a strange attitude after the Secretary of State for Scotland had commended the Act in the warmest terms, and when the Minister of Health is himself trying to get local authorities to improve housing conditions, particularly in the rural areas. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman really means to commend this Act of Parliament to local authorities, and to vigorously work it? In the same debate the Under-Secretary for Scotland referred in terms which were not exaggerated to the work done by his predecessor, and said that for over two years his predecessor every week-end had been commending to local authorities in Scotland, not only the Wheatley Act, but the Conservative Act as well. That is a strange contrast to the attitude of the Minister of Health.
  The Second Reading of this Bill was passed on the 21st April, 1931. Since then, the Minister of Health has
  2370
  been communicating with the local authorities with reference to their housing proposals and urging them to make further endeavours in the provision of housing accommodation. One does not wonder at that, having regard to the right hon. Gentleman's record in relation to housing. I have here Circular 1197, dated 27th April, some days after the Second Reading of this Bill. It might be imagined, as the Government were seeking the sanction of the House to the extension of the Act, that the right hon. Gentleman would have shown some interest in it and some desire to ask the local authorities to concern themselves actively in the Measure, but in the circular there is no reference whatever to it except in the schedule at the end, where there is a little blank and the words "Scope for action under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926." I do not understand the action of the Minister in this matter. How can he expect local authorities to interest themselves in the Measure, if he is describing it as a miserable little project, and belittling it as he did on the occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill? How can he expect local authorities to take advantage of the Act, if in the very first communication which he makes to them after its extension has been proposed in this House, he does not vigorously encourage them to adopt its proposals? It seems to me an unsatisfactory method of procedure. Of all people, the Minister of Health ought to take advantage of every Act of Parliament to increase the housing accommodation in the country. But the right hon. Gentleman's record, as I have said, is a very poor one. During the year which ended in April last 1,000 fewer houses were built in rural areas than in the preceding year. In almost every phase of housing activity, in both rural and urban areas, there is great need for improvement in housing progress, under the righ hon. Gentleman's administration. I confess I think it useless, or at any rate of very little use, to give this Bill a Third Reading if we have at the head of the Department responsible for its administration a man who puts his name on the back of the Bill asking for the extension of the Act and at the same time decries the Act in this House and endeavours to discourage local authorities from adopting it.
  Captain GUNSTON: I congratulate the Government on introducing a Measure which may do some good to somebody. We have spent a considerable part of this Session in considering a Bill to reconstruct the fortunes of the Liberal party. We are now considering a Bill to reconstruct rural housing. I protest against discussing such an important Bill at this late hour, but I do not complain at the Government adopting a Conservative Measure. I know that they are conscious of their own failure as regards rural housing, and that they are delighted to save their faces by continuing a Conservative Act which has done a great deal for the agricultural labourers of Scotland and has been of assistance to a lesser degree in England. When the original Act was introduced, we believed that it would be possible to reconstruct rural housing and make them more habitable, and on the Second Reading of this Bill, the Secretary of State for Scotland told us that considerable advantage had been taken of the provisions of the Act in Scotland and that it had been the means of providing healthier housing accommodation for a large number of the rural workers there. We welcome that statement but we are concerned to see that the Measure has been less useful in England than in Scotland. I think there are three reasons for that difference. In the first place, I believe that the canny Scot knows a good thing when he sees it. In the second place, I believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland has shown himself ready to work a Measure which he knows is going to help the workers in the country, and has not been blinded by partisan prejudice like the Minister of Health.
  I do not propose to spend time in quoting the speeches of the Minister of Health on the subject. I believe it was Cromwell who came to this House and tore up the records of Parliament. I am sure that the Minister of Health would like to tear out some of the records of his speeches, because surely, no Minister in such a short space of time, has made such extraordinary statements as the right hon. Gentleman. One can scarcely imagine that he himself believes in the accusations which he made against this Act, or take seriously his statement that if he were in Opposition, he would make them again. My complaint against him
  2372
  is that he has deluded many of his followers in the country into believing his statements. That brings me to the third reason why the Act has not been as successful in England as we would have liked. Everybody knows that Labour Members of district and county councils have done their best in many cases to prevent the Act working. They have done so, quite sincerely, because they believed in the words of the Minister of Health, that this was a dole to landlords. [HON. MEMBERS: "Quite right."] Then, hon. Members opposite are going to vote for it to-night. The hon. Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Alpass), for example, says, quite sincerely I believe, that he thinks that it is a dole to landlords and that it will not be much use to rural workers. He himself took a very active part in the Gloucestershire County Council and was so successful that that Act has not been working there to any great extent.
  Mr. ALPASS: I am sure the hon. Member would not desire to misrepresent me. My opposition on the Gloucestershire County Council was directed to making gifts out of the public rates to landlords to put their houses in order when they were able to do it. The motion I moved on the Gloucestershire County Council was not to refuse to administer the Act of Parliament. I am too good a constitutionalist for that. It was that any assistance given to landlords should be by way of loan and not by way of gift.
  Captain GUNSTON: I did not mean to misrepresent the hon. Member, and I warned him that I was going to raise the matter. He did not want to give assistance to landlords, and it was because he believed the speeches of the Minister. I should have thought, therefore, that he would be supporting an Amendment for the rejection of the Bill.
  Mr. ALPASS: There are two alternative ways of using this Bill. You may lend the money or you may grant the money, and the option is left to the local authority.
  Captain GUNSTON: I am not accusing the hon. Member in any way. I say that he is perfectly sincere, but that he was led into this attitude by the speeches of the Minister of Health when he was in opposition. I want to ask whether

  2373
  there is going to be a reversal of the attitude of the Minister of Health. Is he going to ask all his supporters on the local councils throughout the country to forget what he said and to see that the Act is properly used? When I read the speeches of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Scotland, I am very much encouraged, because they have realised that this is a, useful Act and have determined to work it. We ought to have some assurance that the Minister of Health really does want to work it in England. Speaking the other day, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said of this matter that he felt sure that the representatives of East Lothian would be only too pleased to pay visits to the reactionary areas in England and convince them of the success that they made of the administration of this Act in Scotland. I suggest that the first visit the representatives of East Lothian ought to make should be to the Minister of Health in London. Rural workers who want it are entitled to have their cottages improved and the Government should make some statement that they intend to work the Act and to get as many reconditioned houses as possible for the workers of this country.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I do not think that the last speaker or the right hon. Member for Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) will expect the Minister or myself to reply—
  Sir K. WOOD: I certainly expect the Minister of Health to reply.
  Mr. ADAMSON: To reply to the questions. As a matter of fact, these questions were put and answered on Second Reading. In a former Debate, the right hon. Member for West Woolwich stated that it was the almost unanimous view of members in all parts of the House that this was a desirable step for the Government to take. One would have thought, when they saw the general feeling, that there would have been very little discussion required on this Bill. On all three occasions it has been very fully discussed. The right hon. Gentleman further stated that he was very glad to see that the Act of 1926 is now being generally adopted in England as well as in Scotland. Surely, that is a result
  2374
  that should stand to the credit of the present Government, and the few figures I shall give to the House to-night will prove that is a result that does stand to the credit of the present Government to a much greater extent than to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. The figures that I shall give are the figures for the last full year that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends had the administration of this Act under their charge. In Scotland there were 1,396 houses built and in England 1,316 houses, a total of 2,712 houses. In the last full year that the present Government has been responsible for the administration of the Act, the year 1930, there were 6,960 houses built in Scotland and in England 4,049 houses, or a total of 11,009 houses, which is four times the number of houses built by the right hon. Gentleman. When I take the number of houses that it is estimated will be built by September 30th next, when the present Act would expire but for this Bill to extend it, I find that it is estimated that in England and Scotland there will be built 15,287 houses, or six times the number that was built by the right hon. Gentleman.
  I claim that it is because the present administration has properly administered this Act that they have produced the results which I have given to the House. Instead of the right hon. Gentleman standing at that Box and boasting how good an Act this is, he should be standing at the Box clothed in sackcloth and ashes, confessing in all humility his sins and his shortcomings. If anyone is entitled to boast about what has been done in connection with this Act of Parliament, it is my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and myself, but, instead of doing that, we have been getting the work done quietly and efficiently, done in a way that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends failed to do. When the Act was first introduced, some of us had grave doubts as to whether it would fulfil the anticipations that the promoters of the Bill had about it. That did not prevent us, when we became responsible for administering the Act, taking up even a faulty Measure and making the best of it. As a matter of fact, we made a far better job of administering it than the right hon. Gentleman. Instead of the veiled sneers that have

  2375
  been passed across the table in the course of the three discussions we have had, we should be getting a special vote of thanks. There is not much gratitude in the matter. While you may administer an Act of your opponents, and make even a better job than they did, even for that there is little gratitude. In my country, we have an old proverb which says
  "Where there is heart room there is house room."
  We put heart into this Measure and provided house room. We have produced houses in a far greater measure than the right hon. Gentleman and his friends were able to accomplish. I hope all parties in the House will see fit now to let us have the Third Reading of this Bill, and I strongly state that, if we get the Third Reading, we will do our best to make a good job of it in the future, as we have done in the past. I hope that in doing so our friends of the Opposition will not be so jealous about our taking up this faulty Measure, as we are prepared to take it up and do our best to make it a success.
  Sir T. INSKIP: I should like to move the adjournment of the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Scotland, and his vociferous friends need be under no misapprehension as to our intention. On the Third Reading of the Bill we will certainly not vote against it. At the same time we do not propose, without protest, which we shall make in the most effective way open to us, to allow this misuse of opportunity by the Minister of Health to pass. There is nothing that this House recognises with more warmth and readiness than a genial and ready confession of error. If the Minister of Health had been here this evening, and had got up in a frank, manly, fashion and admitted that he was wrong before, and hoped now to be right, he would have earned not only the greater respect of his party behind him but the appreciation of hon. Members on this side of the House. I say that sincerely. The Minister of Health found the recital of the success of the administration of this Measure by the Secretary of State for Scotland such that, as the figures improved, he could not stand it any longer and left the House. That is apparently an earnest of the intentions of the Minister of Health with regard to this Measure.
  2376
  The Secretary of State for Scotland has given some figures which suggest that he has made a greater success of this Bill than my right hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). When we remember the opprobrium the Government attempted to inflict on this Bill in its early stages the surprise is that we managed to get so many county councils to take an interest in it and put it into administration. As an Englishman, I may say that the Scottish nation were more impervious to the subtle arguments of the Minister of Health, and the Act was a greater success in Scotland at an early stage than in England. It is a fact that the cold water which the Minister of Health poured upon this Act of Parliament persuaded many county councils—I am ashamed to say Gloucester County Council was a glaring case—not to put this Act into operation. If the Minister of Health had come in a frank fashion—I see that the right hon. Gentleman has just returned. Let me not' repeat what I have said, but let me say that we hope—and I say this in all sincerity—that the Minister will recognise that we shall meet him with no taunts if he will rise and help this country to appreciate the fact that all sides of this House are now in favour of this Bill; that all sides of the House now recognise that it can be made into a really useful Act for the benefit of the country workers in England as well as in Scotland.
  In order to give the Minister of Health that opportunity, which I think he ought to accept in view of the criticisms he passed on this Act in its early stages, I wish to move the adjournment of the Debate. If he is prepared to get up and say that he was at one time under a misapprehension about this Act—[Interruption]. I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to apologise to anybody, let alone to me, but there are only two attitudes which the right hon. Gentleman can take up about this Bill. He can say he was right in the opinion he once expressed about the Act—in which case it shows he has no intention of making it a success in the future—or he can now say he realises that he was wrong. I give him an opportunity not to apologise—not in the least—but there is no more generous assembly in the country than this House, and if he can tell us he now intends to make this Act the success, that

  2377
  he believes he can, we shall be able to withdraw the Motion for the adjournment.
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): Since midnight we have been playing at politics. There is no Member of this House dare vote against the Third Reading of this Bill. These speeches are not speeches to give the impression of political sincerity. Either hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite believe in the Bill they passed in 1926, or they do not. Why is it that when we have decided to continue what they did that we should be kept here until this hour. This is a debasement of modern politics. The right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) heard the speech I made on Second Reading. He does not appear to have understood a word that I said. He has repeated again, almost word for word, the speech that he then made. He knows quite well, if he would only take the trouble to look at the OFFICIAL REPORT, that all the questions he has put to me were answered. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are guilty to-night of the worst kind of political exploitation. I am asked what is my attitude to this Bill. I explained it on Second Reading when I showed that we have got more out of this Act than the others did.
  Mr. ADAMSON: Six times as much.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I have explained that if this Act is to be on the Statute Book, and with the county councils using the powers which we gave them last year, we shall get more out of it than the previous Government got out of it. That has been explained. I said on Second Reading that we want to get the best out of the Act. I am reminded again of what I said in 1926—it is like the question regarding what Mr. Gladstone said in 1867. I explained on Second Reading that I was opposed to the Bill introduced in 1926 and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke against the Bill when it was introduced. I explained that this was not our way of doing it, but I said, as I said regarding the Derating Act, that there is an Act on the Statute Book, and it is my duty to administer to the best of my ability. We shall try to do so. If I had my time over again, going back to 1929, I should still administer the Act, and I should still have made the speech I made in
  2378
  August, 1926. I do not like this method, but, if we can do anything to provide a better cottage for a single agricultural worker, even if it means enriching the landlord, I am prepared to do it.
  I am asked now by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir T. Inskip) to confess that I was under a misapprehension, but I was not under a misapprehension. I do not believe that the Rural Workers Housing Act can solve the problem of rural housing. I say that the first Labour Government and this Labour Government have done more to deal with that problem than any other Government, and that the Act of last year offers more opportunities for the solution of the rural housing problem than this amending Bill. Therefore, I am in no mood for confession. I have nothing to confess. I opposed this Bill in 1926, because we thought it was the wrong approach to the problem, and I said so on Second Reading. I am not defending the Act of 1926. I am saying that there it is on the Statute Book. It has done very little—it has done far less than hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite thought it would. We have got more advantage from it than they have done, and we are prepared to give it another chance. But I am not going to say I agree with it. I say what I said on Second Reading—I will not quote the OFFICIAL REPORT—that if we can do anything to improve housing conditions for rural workers I am prepared to do it.
  I will throw out a challenge to hon. Members opposite who have kept us here. They dare not divide against the Third Reading, for in that case they would, of course, be denying the parentage of the Measure. It is not our Measure, and, as we pointed out, nobody needs to be proud of it. It has not achieved very much. The point I tried to make on Second Reading and am trying to make again to-night is that it has done very little. I see no reason for inordinate pride, but we are prepared to continue the life of this rather dubious infant for five years. It is not a very worthy infant, but it might be a useful person in the community, and that is all that we claim on this side of the House. I hope hon. Members opposite, having had their fling to-night, will agree that we might give it a Third Reading and get it on the Statute Book at the earliest possible opportunity.
  Earl WINTERTON: I have taken down some of the choice phrases which the right hon. Gentleman used to-night when he proceeded to refer to the speeches of my hon. Friends as the debasement of modern politics, and things of that kind. All this froth and fury on the part of the right hon. Gentleman.—and I am afraid I have never listened to any of his speeches which did not contain froth and fury—
  Mr. SPEAKER: It appears to me that most of the Debate has been out of order this evening. Very little has been said about the Bill, and hon. members must remember that on the Third Reading of the Bill only what is contained in the Bill is in order. These speeches of attack on the Minister have gone backwards and forwards across the floor of the House, and there must be an end to the answers which hon. Members give each other.
  Earl WINTERTON: I am sorry to incur your displeasure, Mr. Speaker, but I must point out that we have been subjected to a very strong attack by the right hon. Gentleman [Hon. Members: "Who started it?"] and that a phrase like "the debasement of modern politics" is not one that should be used by a Minister regarding a right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The noble Lord must remember that the Minister was replying to an attack made upon him. If we go on doing that from one side to the other, we shall be here until to-morrow morning at six o'clock.
  Earl WINTERTON: With respect, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to prevent us being here until six if we choose to discuss this matter.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Yes there is, because it is distinctly out of order on the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Earl WINTERTON: It would be strictly out of order if I were to say anything which you would rule out of order, but it would be strictly in order for me to address myself to the purposes of the Bill itself for the next hour.
  I only wish to say that the right hon. Gentleman has been convicted of the grossest possible inconsistency. Here is a Bill which, in the various stages through which it passed when it was
  2380
  brought in by the late Government, he condemned in the strongest possible terms, and to-day he is supporting the same Bill. In those circumstances, the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) was quite entitled to put to the right hon. Gentleman the questions which he did put, and he has received no answer. I do not propose to comment on that fact. Had the right hon. Gentleman given the answer which was obviously called for, it would not have been necessary for the House to have been delayed for half-an-hour, nor would the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip) have sought to move the adjournment of the Debate. I only wish to say that this is an excellent Bill and that the Minister would have shown more political courage if he had admitted it. He dare not abandon the Bill, because he knows—[Interruption]—that, if he did so, he would be condemned from one end of the country to the other.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners, under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of part of the county of Dumfries, which was presented on the 30th day of April, 1931, he approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners, under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of part of the urban district of Otley and part of the rural district of Wharfedale, in the West Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the 29th day of April, 1931, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners, under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of the urban district of Nantyglo and Blaina, in the county of Monmouth,

  2381
  which was presented on the 28th day of April, 1931, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners, under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and the Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Act, 1930, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, to increase the capital and borrowing powers of the Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Company, which was presented on the 29th day of April, 1931, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners, under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport
  2382
  under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of the urban district of Longridge and parts of the rural districts of Preston and Garstang, in the county palatine of Lancaster, which was presented on the 30th day of April, 1931, be approved."—[Mr. Parkinson.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Five Minutes after One o'Clock a.m.

  ROYAL HOSPITAL, CHELSEA.
  ROYAL HOSPITAL, CHELSEA.
  SWEETENED CONDENSED MILK (IMPORT).
  SWEETENED CONDENSED MILK (IMPORT).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  WORK SCHEMES, LIVERPOOL.
  WORK SCHEMES, LIVERPOOL.
  COAL MINSKS.
  COAL MINSKS.
  WORK SCHEMES, GLASGOW.
  WORK SCHEMES, GLASGOW.
  AIR MAIL, DUTCH EAST INDIES-AUSTRALIA.
  AIR MAIL, DUTCH EAST INDIES-AUSTRALIA.
  TRINIDAD (HELIUM).
  TRINIDAD (HELIUM).
ROYAL NAVY.
  DOCKYARD STOREHOUSEMEN (EXAMINATION FEE).
  DOCKYARD STOREHOUSEMEN (EXAMINATION FEE).
  UNITED STATES FLEET (ENTERTAINMENT)
  UNITED STATES FLEET (ENTERTAINMENT)
  SHIPWRIGHT APPRENTICES.
  SHIPWRIGHT APPRENTICES.
  ACCOUNTANT OFFICERS.
  ACCOUNTANT OFFICERS.
  COMMISSIONED SUPPLY OFFICERS AND ENGINEERS.
  COMMISSIONED SUPPLY OFFICERS AND ENGINEERS.
  EDUCATION (CENTRAL WELSH BOARD ACCOUNTS).
  EDUCATION (CENTRAL WELSH BOARD ACCOUNTS).
  MAILS IN TRANSIT (PROTECTION).
  MAILS IN TRANSIT (PROTECTION).
  NATIONAL TREASURES (SALES).
  NATIONAL TREASURES (SALES).
  NOTE CIRCULATION.
  NOTE CIRCULATION.
  ELECTRICITY. SUPPLY.
  ELECTRICITY. SUPPLY.
AGRICULTURE.
  COUNTY STATUTORY COMMITTEES.
  COUNTY STATUTORY COMMITTEES.
  SMALLHOLDINGS.
  SMALLHOLDINGS.
  MILK (INFECTION).
  MILK (INFECTION).
  SOUTHWOLD HARBOUR.
  SOUTHWOLD HARBOUR.
  SIERRA LEONE (EDUCATION).
  SIERRA LEONE (EDUCATION).
HOUSING.
  CAMBERWELL.
  CAMBERWELL.
  TOWN PLANNING SCHEME, ELTHAM.
  TOWN PLANNING SCHEME, ELTHAM.
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
PALESTINE AND EAST AFRICA LOANS BILL.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a; and to be printed.
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930) deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (PORTSLADE AND SOUTHWICK OUTFALL SEWERAGE DISTRICT AND SEATON BURN VALLEY JOINT SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL. [H.L.]
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to the Portslade and Southwick Outfall Sewerage District and Seaton Burn Valley Joint Sewerage District; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LANCASTER AND DISTRICT JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health

1337
relating to Lancaster and District Joint Hospital District; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Read 2a.
SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
Read 2a.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WAREHAM EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).

AGRICULTURAL LAND (UTILISA TION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM had given Notice that on the Motion for the Third Reading, he would move, That the Bill be read 3a this day six months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I expected that the noble Earl, in charge of the Bill would have said a word or two in moving the Third Reading of this most important measure, but as he has not said anything I propose now to move that your Lordships reject the Bill on Third Reading. What is the position at the present moment? The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, told us about a fortnight ago (I have his speech here) that if we rejected the Bill on Third Reading very considerable consequences would ensue. He also reminded your Lordships of what occurred when you rejected the Budget of 1909. What is the position at the present moment? At the present moment there is an attack against your Lordships' House brought by the present Government, and especially by the Prime Minister and by the Leader of the. Liberal Party in another place. They have said, as Lord Beauchamp practically said, that
1338
your Lordships have no right to interfere with any legislation which is introduced by a Socialist Government; that is to say, that when a Socialist Government is in power there is to be single-chamber government and your Lordships are to sit still and do nothing, although you may honestly believe that it is in the interests of the country that you should take action.
May I for one moment recall to your Lordships' memory what took place in 1909? Who was right in 1909? Was it the Liberal Government of that day, who told us that if the Budget was passed large sums of money would be found for building Dreadnoughts and for other purposes? That Government so confused the public mind that the public actually believed that something of that sort would take place. What did happen? Instead of there being large sums of money for building Dreadnoughts and other things, in the ten years that elapsed before Mr. Lloyd George himself repealed the Act, there was a loss to the country of £3,700,000. So as a matter of fact, if your Lordships' advice had been taken, the country would have saved £3,700,000, which, after all, is something. What did happen in 1909? There were a large number of Conservatives returned to the House of Commons—a greater number than before—and a large number of Liberal members were rejected, and the result was that the majority was in the hands of the Irish. The Irish had always objected to the Budget, and what they said was: "We will not pass the Budget"; and the Liberal Party could not pass that Budget without the consent of the Irish. The Irish then said: "You must give us Home Rule," which had been religiously avoided for years by the Liberal Party, and a Home Rule Bill was introduced. "But," said the Irish, "you have got to stop the House of Lords. They have, with the consent of the country, on two occasions rejected Home Rule Bills, and they will do so again, with the consent of the country. To prevent the country doing what it thinks is right, you have got to muzzle the House of Lords." That is what took place in 1909.
Do your Lordships suppose for one moment that if you reject this Bill you will in any way conciliate the Government opposite, or the Socialists in the country? You will do nothing of the

1339
sort. They will still go on. This cry against the House of Lords is the only cry they have got. They have made such an unholy mess of everything that the only thing they can do is to raise this cry against the House of Lords. If you do not reject the Third Reading of this Bill, what is going to happen? Why has the date for the Third Reading of this Bill been moved forward from June 9 to this day? I am a simple-minded and innocent person, but I am not so simpleminded and innocent as to believe that noble Lords who sit on the Bench opposite are so concerned to give us another week's holiday that they have moved the Third Reading of this Bill forward for that simple reason. The reason they have done it is this, to give more time in another place, if we pass the Third Reading, for sending our Amendments back to us, and, when we send them back again, returning them to us slightly amended, as they can do, and so intensify the campaign against your Lordships' House. I am not doing anything wrong in asking your Lordships to reject the Bill on the Third Reading, because my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, when he asked us not to reject the Bill on Second Reading, pointed out that there was always a Third Reading. Therefore, as I always do, and as I hope I always shall do, at any rate in the majority of cases, I am following my noble and learned friend's advice.
Let us consider for a moment what will happen if we pass the Third Reading. All our Amendments have been refused by the Government, and they will all come back to us; and, as I have already said, when we, as I hope, send them back again to the House of Commons they will all come back to us with slight Amendments. This will go on, just as with the Coal Bill, like a game of battledore and shuttlecock between the two Houses, intensifying the friction between the two Houses. What is going to happen over Clause 6? We have put in an Amendment to limit the expenditure to £10,000,000, and that, I venture to say, is a most important Amendment. The financial position of this country—and I may claim to have some knowledge of that, having sat for seventeen and a half years as a member for the City of London—is most serious. The financial position is most serious, and I myself regret that we have even gone so far as to allow the
1340
Government to spend £10,000,000. However good an object may be, at the present moment we cannot afford to spend money. We have got to cut our coat according to our cloth, and, if we are going to save ourselves from getting into the position of Australia, we must economise.
However good an object is, we cannot spend money on it if we have not got it. We have put the limit at £10,000,000. Suppose that Amendment comes back to us. Suppose they say: "You have no business to interfere with us and put a limit on our expenditure"; what are we going to do? Are we going to sanction unlimited expenditure? It has already been stated, not by me but by another noble Lord, I believe correctly, that to put 100,000 men on the land, out of the over 2,000,000 men who are unemployed, will cost £100,000,000 and possibly more. Are we going to allow £100,000,000 to be spent, however good the object may be? I have the support of some powerful people in this matter, because, if you will allow me, I will read what Lord Hailsham said on April 23:
"…. reforms, however desirable must be postponed if the present standard of living of our people is not to be permanently lowered—when we are in that position we have no right to allow unlimited experiments, without any sort of check upon the extravagance of a Ministry or of a particular Minister. I for one do not see how it is possible, consistently with the present financial position of the country as it is disclosed by His Majesty's Government themselves in recent speeches, to say to the Minister: We will give you a blank cheque; you may spend as many millions as you like and go on as fast and as wildly as you please, with no limitations of time or of acreage or anything else; you may spend hundreds of millions,' because, forsooth, the noble Earl can make an eloquent platform speech about taking people off the 'dole' and settling them on the land, and turning them into prosperous citizens."
I do not think I have ever heard nobler sentiments better expressed and I am very glad to be able to agree with them.
But that is not all, because my noble and learned friend said this:—
"The reason I am voting for the clause"—
that is the clause dealing with small holdings—
"is that the Government, with the assent of another place, say that by this means they can mitigate unemployment, and I am willing to give them the chance to try."

1341
Now, mark this:
"Whether or not I should give them the chance to try on an unlimited scale is quite a different question, and, since the noble Earl, was unable to give us any satisfactory assurance, I propose to ask those who agree with me to insert limitations both of time and amount at this stage, and then the noble Earl will have an opportunity, no doubt, of considering and of letting us know on Report stage which of those he prefers, or if he prefers neither, and would rather have, as may happen, no clause at all."
The noble Earl has not given any assurance. On the contrary, if he has said anything at all it is that he is going to refuse to accept any limitations.
I had hoped he would say something on the Third Reading, and I was rather doubtful whether it was absolutely necessary for me to be here punctually at three o'clock. But thirty years in the House of Commons have taught me that sometimes it is not a bad policy to get up and say nothing; possibly your opponents will not be there, and possibly the Third Reading will slip through without anybody being aware that anything has happened! And therefore I said to myself, "Bearing that in mind, I had better be there at three o'clock"; and it is very lucky I was, because the noble Earl did exactly what I thought he possibly might. He got up and said "I beg to move," and then sat down. And he has given us no undertaking that he will accept any Amendments.
Therefore, I sincerely hope that your Lordships will reject this Bill on the Third Reading. You will not in any way antagonise the Socialists any more than you have done already—they will be equally angry whatever you do—but you will avoid many days of Amendments passing between the two Houses; you will avoid comments upon this by the Daily Herald and all the Socialist papers; and you will assert your right to reject a Bill if you think it is wrong and in the interests of the country that it should be rejected. What is the use of this House if we are never to do anything except come down and make speeches in a debating club? We had much better go away and have single-chamber government. But as long as we are here I hope we shall remember Lord Nelson's signal: "England expects every man to do his duty." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all words after ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this clay six months").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD TREOWEN: My Lords, I should like to take this, the earliest moment possible, to lay before your Lordships my views on the Motion of the noble Lord, since I was the mover of a similar Motion on the Second Reading. The circumstances on the two occasions are entirely different. I am wholly unrepentent over the action I took on the Second Reading. I considered I was justified, as I told your Lordships at the time, by the support of every organisation in this country which had to do with land or the utilisation of land. I was, moreover, fortified by a very strong statement that had recently been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that we could not afford expenditure of this kind, that even things which might be necessary would have to be put off. And lastly, I was impressed—whether rightly or wrongly there may be different opinions—that this was the beginning of other steps, which we have since seen developed, for the nationalisation of the whole of the land of this country. I think that would be sufficient justification for my action. But I will also remind your Lordships, as I informed you then, that I acted as one wholly independent of any Party ties. I was simply acting in the interests of those for whom I spoke. I am equally independent of Party ties to-day, and I will beg your Lordships to reject the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, and for a reason which I will put before you.
Your Lordships devoted a great deal of time, first of all, to the discussion of my Motion for rejection, and I think it was admitted even on the Benches opposite that that debate was deserving of the greatest consideration on account of the amount of knowledge of the subject debated which was shown by noble Lords on both sides. Moreover, your Lordships gave very considerable time to the Amendments. You may remember that on the Second Reading I withdrew my Motion, though I believe had it been pressed it would have been carried. But I did so from the very strong feeling that was expressed in your Lordships' House that certain parts of the Bill should be pre-

1343
served, because it was possible to make them useful—namely, those parts connected with small holdings and allotments. No member of your Lordships' House, I am sure, wishes to withhold land that could be usefully employed for such purposes. And it seemed to me that, had I pressed my Motion for rejection, I should have laid your Lordships open to attacks which have since been made without the foundation that might have existed had this Bill been thrown out on Second Reading. I have said that your Lordships devoted a great deal of time and care to the Amendments. I do not say that I regard the Bill as a good Bill now, but your Lordships have done your best to make it a workable Bill.
From the very outset it was clear to every one on this side of the House that the drafting of the Bill alone made it very difficult to amend. Points raising the question of Privilege were so intermingled with other matters that it became very difficult to introduce Amendments without trenching upon the sacred Privilege of another place. Nevertheless, the noble Earl in charge of the Bill showed such a sympathetic reception of the proposals of the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition that there seemed every chance if we devoted ourselves thoroughly to amending the Bill, that when those Amendments came to be considered in another place they would receive at least an equally careful consideration. I had a long experience of the House of Commons, and I am still what may be called a Commons' man in that I believe in Parliamentary government on the traditions and principles on which Parliamentary government has existed for so many centuries in this country. I still hope that when this Bill goes back to another place there will not be that summary dismissal which the noble Lord who has moved its rejection anticipates. If we are disappointed the fault will lie upon other heads than those of your Lordships.
Your Lordships have shown your willingness to assist the Government by improving their Bill. That Amendments have been accepted by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill shows that even on that side of the House it was recognised that we were not out for wrecking. Your Lordships may remember that a consider-
1344
able number of Amendments had to be brought forward by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to make it a readable and possible measure. We have been carrying out what the late Lord Oxford described, when introducing the Parliament Bill, as the duty of your Lordships' House. I was present and heard his speech on that occasion, and I well remember the points he insisted upon as the duty of your Lordships' House and the necessity for having such a House—namely, revision and, if necessary, delay. Your Lordships have not exceeded your privilege. Therefore, I trust your Lordships will favourably consider the Motion of the noble Earl for the Third Reading of this Bill.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, I must own that I felt more convinced by the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Treowen, on the Second Reading of the Bill than by that which he has just delivered. After all, supposing this Bill be as bad as he thought it was and as I believe he still thinks it was, it does not in the least matter upon which Party the burden of passing it rests. The burden will rest upon the country and the country will have to suffer for it. I should say from personal experience that fifty years ago this Bill would have been debated to the greater public advantage in another place by members of Parliament conversant with the pros and cons of the English land system. So many knew then what they were talking about on either side of the House. Then, moreover, the subject could have been dealt with without that spectre of unemployment in the background which, with other extraneous matter, has entirely changed the character of Parliament and its legislation.
Dr. Addison has become the chief agricultural authority in England, and the chief preoccupation of all Members of Parliament is to guess at what is in the minds of the male and of the still more numerous female voters. On the other hand, knowledge of, and experience in, agriculture remains a distinguishing characteristic of your Lordships' House, while any taint of prejudice has vanished with the great estate. The pride of ownership is no more. All Parties participate in the destruction of anything that yet remains of the old English land system regardless of consequences in loss

1345
or cost. The hereditary estate is passing away as easily as its friends could wish and as rapidly as its enemies could desire. The land grows nothing for the owner but taxes and other burdens, so that he is chiefly anxious to rid of it. In the circumstances of to-day it is here in this House alone that a Bill such as this can be practically, intelligently and impartially dealt with.
I admit that in the application of this Bill to Scotland there was a provision calculated to rouse any dormant sense of injustice and of injury in a landowner. It provided that laud in private possession should be made subject to the experiments contained in this Bill. On another Bill I explained to your Lordships this remarkable feature in the Crofter Acts, as limited to crofting areas, and one recently reported on by the Nairne Inquiry and condemned as unsuited for the agriculture of the rest of Scotland. This is now to be applied to that agriculture in an unlimited degree, and there are indications of a hope on the part of the Government that the owner is to be held up to further plunder under "privilege."
I will state very briefly the reasons for my belief that the Bill should be condemned. In the earlier stages of the discussion there were three lines of action open. First, to vote for its rejection on Second Reading or for its postponement. Then I supported the view of the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, whose opinion carries great weight in the North; for it is a mad Bill in the state of our finances. The second course was to let it through and give a free hand to an autocratic Minister whose wasteful expenditure is monumentally recorded from Land's End to John o'Groats. The third was to render lip service to economy, while cutting out the big farming on the Soviet model, and passing the clauses on which there is no limit to expenditure, with no concession being made by the Government. The late Lord Haldane laid stress upon clear thinking. It is certainly to be desired in the councils of all Parties at the present time. What is most necessary at this stage of the Bill, I agree with my noble friend beside me (Lord Banbury of Southam), is to decide on one's Lobby, and I feel impelled to that which is indicated by the Amendment on the Paper.
1346
The outstanding result of the endeavour of successive Governments to cope with unemployment has been to bring our finances into chaos. £500,000,000 have been spent on the roads, and this goes merrily on; incidentally to the ruin of the railways. More hundreds of millions have been spent on houses, to the ruin of private enterprise. And again on social services; from "doles" to trade credits, every kind of subsidy has been given, all resulting in increased unemployment which goes up by the million, and taxation by many millions, every successive year, which is at the root of unemployment. Now we have a prospect of hundreds of millions being spent under this Bill on small holdings alone. In this island the private owner has spent a sum approaching £1,000,000,000 on land equipment for economic agriculture, most of which is on the ground at this moment, and much of it must be scrapped that more costly forms be substituted for the endowed small holder. Land is also to be conditioned.
Nothing more easy than to spend a thousand millions or more upon all of this. Small holdings have been and are being provided by every kind of device, by every kind of agency, often in excess of the number of competent applicants, unless in certain localities. The one part of the Bill for which there is anything to be said is that dealing with allotments, which might do something conducive to social stability and content besides adding to production. Such clauses deserve every consideration, and by themselves would, we none of us doubt for a moment, be favourably considered. The whole Bill has been exhaustively dealt with, so that there is really nothing more to add, but, faced with the real facts of the situation as we now are, I feel obliged to vote against the Third Reading of a Bill which has certainly been treated with no lack of consideration in your Lordship's House and which is certainly not one that ought to be passed.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, let me begin by saying that my noble friend Lord Banbury is clearly quite right when he points out that there can be no possible ground of complaint against hire for moving to reject this Bill on the Third Reading, notwithstanding that its Second Reading was accepted without a

1347
Division. It was made perfectly clear, as he himself reminded your Lordships, that in passing the Bill on the Second Reading we could not be said to be approving a principle, because nobody could say that there was one principle underlying the Bill; and what I ventured then to suggest to your Lordships was that we should pass the Second Reading, we should deal with the Bill in Committee as might seem right to your Lordships' House, and we should then see, when the Third Reading stage was reached, whether or not the Bill in its present form was one which ought to receive your Lordships' assent.
I propose for a few moments—because, after all, the matter is of some little importance I think—to see what are the alterations between the Bill as it reached your Lordships' House and the Bill as it is before this House to-day. When we were discussing the Second Reading, the Bill began with provisions for experiments in large-scale farming which might cost anything up to £1,000,000. That provision has disappeared from the Bill altogether. It went on next to make provision for demonstration farms to be run at the public expense, and to cost anything up to £5,000,000. That provision has disappeared from the Bill altogether. It went on in Clause 3 to make provision for the Minister having power to acquire land, to reclaim it by agreement, and, by the same clause, although dealing with a different topic, it went on to make provision for the Minister to have the right to insist on the landowner performing works of maintenance if his land was in a seriously neglected condition, and, in default, gave power to the Minister compulsorily to acquire the land and to do the work himself.
In the Committee stage your Lordships will remember that we inserted provisos in regard to that clause that the work must be economic, that there must be some ground for believing that the expenditure on the reclamation work would prove economically sound, and that the demands which were made on the landowner were such that there might be a reasonable prospect of a return on the money which he was asked to expend. Those alterations were made in the Committee stage, but unfortunately—as I think unfortunately—the Government in-
1348
timated on the Report stage that those were proposals which the House of Commons would not be allowed even to consider, and that they were going to be thrown out on the ground that they dealt with a matter of Privilege. Therefore your Lordships were confronted with the alternative of accepting the Bill in its original form with an unlimited power and without any regard to economic considerations, or else of rejecting the clause.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): I am afraid I must intervene. I had to speak on this. We really did not say what the noble Viscount has said. What we said was that we could not pledge ourselves in regard to certain Amendments to interfere with what we considered to be the undoubted Privilege of the House of Commons. That is a very different matter.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not want to be involved in a controversy on what is a plain matter of fact, but your Lordships will remember that never were the Government asked to interfere with the Privilege of the House of Commons. What happened was that, inasmuch as the question of whether or not these Amendments were in the clause might be vital to the decision of your Lordships as to whether the clause should pass or not, we asked the Government to ask the House of Commons, which we pointed out was the sole arbiter of its own Privileges—we asked the Government to give us an assurance that they would ask the House of Commons to deal with the Amendments on their merits and not to dismiss them on the ground of Privilege. The Government were perfectly within their rights, if they chose, in refusing to give any such promise. They did so refuse, and thereupon your Lordships' House was faced with the alternative of either having to pass the clause in its original form or to pass it with Amendments which would not be considered in another place because they might infringe the rules of Privilege, or else of having to reject the clause altogether.
It was a difficult position. It was forced upon us by what I think was an unfortunate decision of the Government, although it is one they were quite entitled to take. Accordingly, being

1349
confronted with the alternative of taking that clause through as it stood, or of rejecting it altogether, your Lordships thought it right on my Motion that that clause should disappear from the Bill. We were not prepared to entrust to the Minister of Agriculture those unlimited powers which the clause gave him. The effect of these alterations is that Part I of the Bill has disappeared altogether and what was Part II now becomes Part I. Part II dealt with three matters in its original form—small holdings, allotments and the right to supersede county councils when the central authority thought that county councils were not satisfactorily carrying out their duties with regard to small holdings. Your Lordships took the view that to supersede county councils merely because the central authority did not approve of the way in which they were discharging their functions was to substitute bureaucratic control for democratic government. That clause has disappeared from the Bill and we are left with the provisions as to small holdings and allotments.
So far as allotments are concerned, I do not think there has been any substantial controversy throughout the discussions in your Lordships' House or any dissent from the view that the provisions as to allotments are in general sound. My noble friend Viscount Novar just now said there was no objection so far as they were concerned. There remains the question of small holdings, and in Committee alterations were made with regard to small holdings. Substantially—I am dealing with the subject, of course, only on broad lines—the alterations are these. First, that in order that small holdings shall be set up in any particular county there must be a reasonable prospect that a man put on to a small holding can, if he is efficient, earn a livelihood—not an unmerciful or unreasonable provision in the interest of the unemployed man. Secondly, there is a provision limiting time and the expenditure to take place under these small holdings provisions. Again, I think there can be no doubt that in these days of financial stress, of which my noble friend Lord Banbury spoke so forcibly, these limitations are wise.
It is no doubt true, and I think we have to face the fact that it is true, that there is a real risk that in another place
1350
the Government may insist that these Amendments shall not even be considered on the ground of Privilege, and accordingly if we pass the Bill as it stands today there is a risk that the small holdings part of it will go through without these limitations which have been inserted. It is only fair that your Lordships should face that possibility. I confess myself that that has imposed upon me a much more difficult decision than that which I had originally hoped I should have to face. I think that with regard to limitations great force attaches to the argument which I remember my noble friend Earl Fortescue adduced in Committee, that in dealing with this part of the Bill it would be quite impossible for any Ministry, however extravagant, to get to work on any large scale within the, reasonable limits of the present Parliament, and therefore that if a new Parliament is elected with the same political complexion as the present one why, then, no doubt extravagance might be expected whatever limitations are now put in. But if, on the other hand, sanity is restored and disillusionment is complete, and the electorate is allowed to decide on merits and not on red herrings, then a Government will be in power which can be trusted to see that this extravagant expenditure is curbed and that reasonable precautions are taken not to waste public money.
That is a, factor which, as my noble friend indicated, is a very relevant one in considering the question of limitations; but there is another point which has had a good deal of weight with me. These proposals with regard to small holdings are avowedly proposals for dealing with the unemployment problem. I think it is not an exaggeration to say that amid all the confusion and turmoil of the last Election what was the determining factor with the bulk of the electorate was the assertion of the Socialist Party that they were in a position to deal immediately and drastically with the unemployment problem, to restore our depressed industries, and to bring—in their own language—relief and hope to every worker in the land within the first Session of the new Parliament. They were discreetly vague as to what those proposals were, and we heard not long ago from the noble Lord opposite,

1351
Lord Passfield, that in fact they were never existent. None the less, after two years there has emerged this one constructive proposal—a proposal to put the unemployed on the land.
I think that it is true to say that the electorate were induced largely to vote as they did by the promise of the other side that they had effective proposals to put forward, and that it was the desire of the electorate to see a trial given to those proposals. Now here is the first and, as far as I know, the only one. I should hesitate myself a long time before I refused to give it a trial when I diagnose the Election as having been fought on those lines. But I do not quite stop there. It is not true, as the noble Earl thought at an earlier period, that the fact that I am supporting—in so far as I am supporting—these proposals means that I am satisfied that they will succeed. I do not think that that is a question that your Lordships have to ask yourselves. I do not think you have to be satisfied that these proposals will succeed. My own feeling is that there are methods of dealing with unemployment, of improving the prospects and the recovery of industry and of agriculture, but they are methods which the Socialists and the Liberals refuse to consider or entertain. They have brought forward this alternative and, in another place, all Parties have agreed that a trial ought to be given to these proposals. If indeed they succeed then there is not a member of this House who will not rejoice in their success.
After all, nobody is better pleased at the prospect of establishing a contented and prosperous race of small holders on the land than those who sit on these Benches in this House. There can be no more effective means of preventing an unreasoning campaign against all those who own land than the creation of a very large number of people belonging to that category. There can be no better means of preventing people being willing to undertake wild cat experiments than to create a class of people who have something to lose if those experiments fail. No one would rejoice more than we should if the experiment were to succeed. If, on the other hand, it does not succeed the very fact that the one attempt which the Socialists have been able to make to cure unemployment, apart from the con-
1352
structive proposals of our Party, unfortunately ends in failure, will be perhaps a very powerful argument in favour of adopting those methods in which we all believe.
I have said that it is not an easy decision. I am speaking not for myself. I am speaking now with the unanimous assent of the leaders of the Party to which I have the honour to belong both in this House and in another place. I know, of course, that that is not conclusive. Your Lordships have your own responsibilities and have to make up your own minds, but still I venture to think that the fact that there is a consensus of opinion among those who are regarded as the leaders of the Conservative Party in favour of a certain course is at least a factor which is relevant for your Lordships to consider. My advice is, equally with that of the noble Lord, Lord Treowen, to give this Bill a Third Reading. I know that in giving this advice I am disappointing my noble friend Lord Banbury. He will regard me once more as a timorous person, afraid to take any challenging or fighting attitude with regard to the Socialist Party opposite. But I was not altogether convinced, if he will forgive my saying so, by the argument he adduced when he said we ought to throw out the Bill on Third Reading in order to assert our right to reject Bills. I think nothing would be more certain to destroy our right to reject Bills than if we rejected them merely in order to assert the existence of the right. I am not afraid, when a proper occasion arises, to reject a Bill. Your Lordships' memory need not go back very far.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: It is quite true that I said that I hoped that your Lordships would not hesitate to reject the Bill if you thought it a wrong Bill, but I must remind my noble friend that I pointed out that it was chiefly on the financial reasons that I urged your Lordships to reject the Bill.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My noble friend knows that the last thing I wish to do would be in any way to misrepresent him. Indeed, your Lordships heard what he had to say. The point that I was trying to make was that it is not true to say that the advice that I am giving was given because I am afraid to assert the right of this House to reject a Bill when I think it ought to be

1353
rejected, and I was venturing to remind your Lordships that it is not very long ago that I invited your Lordships to assert that right and you were good enough to follow my advice. The noble Lord said that the Daily Herald would be carrying on a string of commentaries on this House. They have begun already. I have no doubt they will. Whatever we do we shall have that. But I do not think we ought to be deflected from what we think is the wisest course in the national interest by consideration of a Press campaign which is likely to be worked up.
Not only is the advice that I am giving disappointing to my noble friend, I am afraid, but it will also, I think, be disappointing to the Prime Minister, because only two days ago I read in the public Press a letter of the Prime Minister in which he was appealing for popular support of a Socialist candidate and in which he said this:
"The House of Lords has chosen this moment of national anxiety to pick a quarrel with the House of Commons"—
I am quoting only the relevant passage—
"The Government wishes to bring unemployed men capable of cultivating the soil on to the soil. The House of Lords says that they must remain on the unemployed register. Servile to every whim and proposal at the Tory Party, the Lords return to life and hostility as soon as a Labour Government begins to unfold its policy."
No doubt the Prime Minister is a very busy man, and possibly he has not been following very closely what happens in this House. At any rate, he must have been very badly informed as to what has been happening.
Of course, if your Lordships were to accept the view which my noble friend Lord Banbury has been urging, that we should reject this Bill, then the Prime Minister and everyone of his followers would be able to say, and with some show of truth, that "the Government wishes to bring unemployed men capable of cultivating the soil on to the soil," and "the House of Lords says that they must remain on the unemployed register." I do not want the Prime Minister to be able to say that. I think it would be a most unfortunate thing from every point of view if it were possible to make that accusation with any sort of foundation of fact. It may be that, when the Prime
1354
Minister said it, the wish was father to the thought. Let us ensure that in future he shall not be able to repeat it without knowing that he is quite wrong.
I cannot tell whether the Bill in its present form will ever become law. There were Amendments which the Government resisted. Whether the original Part II of the Bill, dealing with allotments and small holdings, becomes law will rest, if your Lordships pass the Third Reading, not with this House but with the Government. If the Government believe in the scheme which they have put into this Bill and if they really want to help unemployment, as they say they do, then they can show it if they accept our Amendments. If they have so little faith in the efficacy of their own scheme, or if they have so little regard for the interests of the unemployed that they prefer to sacrifice these clauses of their own making in order to force a quarrel with this House, the responsibility will be theirs, and at least it will be clear to the people of this country that it is their action, and not ours, which prevents these small holding provisions becoming law. I am quite sure that if we were to accept the Motion of my noble friend we should be doing the very worst thing in the interests, not merely of our Party, which is a secondary consideration, but of the nation and of the Constitution. We should be playing straight into the hands of those who wish to wreck both, and it is for that reason that I urge your Lordships to vote in favour of the Third Reading of the Bill in its present form.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I did not make a speech in moving the Third Reading of this Bill because it seemed to me that it would be unnecessary and undesirable from the point of view of your Lordships' House that I should make two speeches this afternoon. Moreover, I rather suspected, looking at the debates which have taken place in the past on this Bill, that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, would take up the attitude that he has taken this afternoon, and that possibly his speech might convince rather more of your Lordships than would mine. It is quite true that the support of the noble and learned Viscount is somewhat half-hearted, and incident-

1355
ally—we are getting rather accustomed to this in the noble and learned Viscount's speeches—he managed to get in a good deal of electioneering. However, so long as the noble and learned Viscount gives the Bill his support we are really quite prepared to concede him that amount of Party capital, if he thinks it really is of any value to his Party.
It is not necessary, as I think has been generally realised during the debate this afternoon, to go back to the old arguments on the merits of the Bill and its general principles. It is, I think, unusual to have a long debate on a Third Reading unless one of two things has happened: either additions have been made to the Bill which make it necessary to have a further discussion, or else Amendments which were considered of great importance by the House on the Second Beading have not been inserted before the Third Reading. Neither of those things has happened. All the Amendments that have been put forward from that side of the House and which your Lordships wish to insert have been inserted. No additions whatever have been made to this Bill except by this House. The Bill is therefore in the form that has been decided on by this House.
There is really only one point at issue, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, and that is the fact that, if you go back to another stage of the Bill, the Government felt themselves unable to make a pledge which they felt would be in violation of the Privileges of the House of Commons. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, thought to get over that difficulty by his action on Report, by the total exclusion of Part I of the original Bill, and what will happen with regard to that matter in another place it is not for me to say here.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I ask the noble Earl, does he accept the Amendments or does he not?
EARL DE LA WARR: I really do not know the purport of that question. If the noble Lord wants to put a question, perhaps he will put it rather more clearly. What Amendments?
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Certain Amendments have been moved and passed in this House. It is usually the custom in both Houses for the Gov-
1356
ernment, after Amendments are moved by the Opposition, to say whether or not they accept them. Irrespective of any question of Privilege, do the Government accept the Amendments passed in this House?
EARL DE LA WARR: Really the matter was made perfectly clear in Committee and on Report. On every Amendment I made a definite statement as to whether I accepted it or not. All I refused to do was to pledge the action of the House of Commons. The noble Lord tried to make out that we on this side said that the House of Commons were going to reject every Amendment they could on the ground of Privilege. We never said anything of the kind. We merely made it clear that we were not prepared to pledge the House of Commons as to what they would do. Lord Banbury is to a certain extent logical. Part I has been thrown out because this undertaking could not be given, and it is perfectly true that there are limitations in Part II which might quite possibly be adjudged to be privileged, and the noble Lord wants your Lordships to continue the same course as you adopted on Part I to its logical conclusion.
We all know perfectly well that when it comes to the point of attempting to satisfy the destructive fervour of the noble Lord, it is quite impossible to do so, and we all know that really there would be very little object in the existence of this House if members of the House of Commons did as the noble Lord would like them to do, and rejected all Bills, because then we should have nothing whatsoever here to consider. One is, however, relieved to find that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, does not take up that attitude, and he feels apparently that his opposition to Part I was very much stronger than his opposition to Part II, and I gather that he is prepared to take a certain risk with Part II. Let me say this here, that the Government do hope that this Bill will go forward to Third Reading and be sent down to the House of Commons. I reiterate what I said on the Second Reading. While it is quite impossible to pledge the House of Commons as to their action, we are anxious to be reasonable. We have been anxious to be reasonable in the discussions on the Amendments all through.

1357
It is perfectly true we consider that certain things which the noble and learned Viscount said during Committee and Report made it exceedingly hard to discuss the matter of accepting Amendments or not. On the other hand, we have always said that if Amendments were found on further examination of the Bill to be of assistance to the Bill, then, quite apart from any question of Privilege, it is obvious that it is the commonsense thing to do to take all steps to see that those Amendments remain in the Bill.
The noble and learned Viscount has implied that the Amendments as they stand are really Amendments which will help the Bill. I must make it quite clear that we do regard the Bill as it stands as being in a state of shipwreck. Clause 3, which I mention particularly because the noble and learned Viscount referred to the question of unemployment, is gone with the rest of Part I, and what is more, Part II is in such a state that to say the very least it will be almost impossible to carry on any serious work under it. The noble and learned Viscount has complained of what he calls certain exaggerated words of the Prime Minister, but any one who for a moment thought of the problems connected with the settlement of any considerable number of men on the land and who looked at this Bill and saw that it could only go on for four years, must realise that no considerable settlement could take place under the Bill as it stands.
EARL STANHOPE: Does the noble Earl mean that it can do nothing for the unemployed before four years?
EARL DE LA WARR: No, I made the point perfectly clear in Committee. I said that it must take some time before a scheme such as this, if carried out economically and soundly and carefully, can bear fruit. By the time when it is beginning to get into a real swing, the Bill as it stands has to come to an end. As I have said, we are anxious to see all reasonable Amendments retained in the Bill. All Amendments which we consider reasonable, and which have been already officially accepted and agreed to, were accepted on behalf of the Government and we
1358
will endeavour to see that they remain in the Bill. All other Amendments must, of course, be dealt with in the normal manner as between the two Houses. As I have already said, no undertaking can be given. This the usual manner, I believe, of dealing with Bills agreed in principle but not in detail between the two Houses, and A is the procedure which the Government now ask your Lordships to adopt.
The alternative? It is difficult to see an alternative, excepting perhaps that of the reintroduction of the Bill at a later time, in circumstances which must ultimately preclude any real discussion between the two Houses. This is not the alternative that the Government wish to adopt, or would willingly choose, because we believe that this Bill has a real contribution to make to the problem, if it is, carried out on sound and careful lines. It is quite true—it has been brought out in the debate and has never been contradicted—that the effect upon unemployment of this Bill may possibly not be enormous, but so far as it goes I think we are all agreed that it will be a good one, and it is worth while attempting to snake the effort. We believe it has a real contribution to make towards the problem of re-adjusting the balance of population in this country. On that point I noticed this morning that a leading article in the Morning Post stated:
"As Dr. Addison truly remarked, the problem of the clay is to obtain a better balance of the population."
I believe that is a point on which we can all conclude with general agreement, and for that reason we do hope that the Bill will pass into law in such a form as to be of real assistance in the attempt to snake that contribution.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl. He said just exactly what thought he would. The Government are not going to accept any of our important Amendments.
On Question, Whether the word "now shall stand part of the Motion?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 62: Not-Contents, 6.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Esher, V.

Faringdon, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Hailsham. V.

Hawke, L.

Marlborough, D.

Hood, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Sutherland, D.

Mersey, V.

Jessel, L.

Sumner, V.

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

Abingdon, E.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Ancaster, E.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Beauchamp, E.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Buxton, E.

Addington, L.

Passfield, L.

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Amulree, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Grey, E.

Annaly, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Remnant, L.

Lucan, E.

Sanderson, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Clinton, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Midleton, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Snell, L.

Peel, E.

Cushendun, L.

Stanmore, L.

Sandwich, E.

Daryngton, L.

Templemore, L.

Stanhope, E.

Denman, L.

Trenchard, L.

Strafford, E.

Desborough, L.

Treowen, L.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Wargrave, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Wharton, L.

Astor, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bathurst, E.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Wavertree, L.

Novar, V.[Teller.]

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Resolved in the affirmative and Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments.
Clause 20 [Application to Scotland]:
THE EARL of LAUDERDALE THE EARL of LAUDERDALE moved, in paragraph (c), to leave out "or of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1919." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is consequential on an Amendment passed by your Lordships during the Committee stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 12, leave out from ("1918") to end of line 13.—(The Earl of Lauderdale.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments (according to Order).
First Schedule [Constitution of the Council]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after paragraph (3), to insert the following new paragraph:—
"( ) The Chairman of the Committee shall he such person as the Committee may from time to time appoint."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I think it is better that I should move each of these proposed new paragraphs separately. Under the Pharmacy and Poisons Bill the Chairman is chosen by the Privy Council. Under the Port of London Act the Chairman is appointed by the Port Authority. Under this Bill there is not machinery for the appointment of a Chairman, and I think it is safer to have a provision in the Bill for that purpose. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, after line 19, insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE): My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Earl in charge of the Bill is prepared to accept this Amendment, but I should advise that it be not accepted. What the noble Viscount has said is quite true that, in certain instances, a Chairman is designated by the Act itself; but that is only when a particular member is to have special quali-

1361
fications which should obviously snake him specially suitable to preside. That is not the case here. I have been advised that, in the absence of any provision about a Chairman, such a committee as this has inherent power under the Common Law to regulate its own procedure and, therefore, to elect a Chairman.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Is that the case in the Port of London Act?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I think so, yes.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: With special knowledge?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: As that is so I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after paragraph (3), to insert the following new paragraph:
"( ) The Committee shall have power to act by a majority of the members present and in the case of an equality of votes the Chairman of the Committee shall have a casting vote."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in support of the second proposed new paragraph, which provides that the Committee shall have power to act by a majority and that in the case of equality of votes the Chairman shall have a casting vote, I would refer the noble Earl in charge of the Bill and the noble Lord opposite to the Second Schedule of the Pharmacy arid Poisons Bill and to the First Schedule of the Port of London Act, 1908. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, after line 19, insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, on that point, in addition to what has just fallen from the noble Lord opposite,:f would observe to my noble friend beside me that general powers are conferred in Clause 13 of the Bill allowing everything necessary for the proper procedure of the Act to be carried out. The meetings and procedure of the Council, the Board and any Committee appointed under the Act can be regulated under the general powers there conferred. If that were not enough,
1362
the further paragraph (f) empowering the Council generally to carry out and facilitate the purposes of the Act would appear to me to cover the question raised by my noble friend. The paragraph, therefore, that he has moved appears to me to be superfluous, and I would prefer that it be not inserted in the Bill.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Earl in urging the noble Viscount not to insert these words. I really do not think they are necessary. The full Committee is nine and, therefore, no casting vote is necessary. If they were sitting in reduced numbers, say that there were four, and there was a strong division of opinion on a certain point, I doubt if they would even be able to elect a Chairman then, because that would mean giving one of the four a second vote. I think on the whole that to place a casting vote in the hands of the Chairman is really unnecessary in this respect.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, perhaps it is unnecessary for the Chairman to have a casting vote; but are the. Committee to act by a majority or are they to be unanimous? There are no words in the Bill which make it clear that they can act by a majority.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I think the Committee are enabled under the Bill to settle their own procedure and to elect their Chairman, and they would naturally decide whether in certain conditions they would vote by a majority or be unanimous.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I am quite satisfied with the reply of the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, in moving the adjournment of the House I should like to make a short statement. The House will have to resume at noon on Friday, June 5, but only formal business will then be taken. The noble Lord, Lord Marley, and the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, will make proper provision that there is a House for this formal business,

1363
but none of your Lordships need be troubled in any way to come up from your holiday on that day. The ordinary business will begin again on Tuesday, June 9. I am sorry that I could not be present in your Lordships' House the other clay to move the Bill dealing with the two Conventions on safety of life at sea and the load line. That will be the first business on Tuesday, June 9. I hope I shall be able to persuade your Lordships, if we obtain a Second Read-
1364
ing, to give facilities for bringing on the Committee and Report stages of the Bill at an early date, because one Convention has to be ratified before July if possible. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before five o'clock till Friday, June 5, twelve noon.

WEST HARTLEPOOL CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for the following Bill:
Ebenezer Chapel, Birmingham.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the committee of Selection.

BRIGHTON HOVE AND WORTHING GAS ORDER, 1931.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Brighton and Hove General Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

PORTSMOUTH GAS ORDER, 1931.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Portsmouth Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.