asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will assure the House that, in view of recent events in Germany, there will be no further destruction of our existing naval strength under the Treaty of London, regard being had to Article 21 of such treaty?

I assume that my hon. Friend refers to any further scrapping of ships under the treaty. Pending the Naval Conference, which we hope will take place this year, it would be undesirable publicly to discuss such a matter, but my hon. Friend may rest assured that I have had this question for a long time fully in mind.

I am much obliged to my right hon. and gallant Friend. I am sure he can assure the House that the Admiralty fully recognises that, while some of the ships scheduled for destruction may not be equal to first-line work, they will be invaluable in protecting our food supplies in time of war.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the sources of supply for petrol and oil which are consumed by the Navy, specifying the quantity produced at home in 1931 and 1934?

The sources of supply of the petrol and oils consumed by the Navy are England, Scotland, Persia, Borneo, British West Indies, Rumania and the United States of America. It is not possible accurately to specify the amount produced in the British Isles, but only a very small proportion came from British coal and shale in the years named.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the quantity of British coal consumed by the Navy in 1931 and 1934, stating the average price per ton in each case?

The quantity of British coal consumed by the Navy during each of the years 1931 and 1934 was approximately 175,000 tons. It is contrary to established practice to reveal contract prices.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) the amount forecast to be spent during 1934 and the amount estimated to be spent in 1935 on structural stores required in connection with the building and repair of ships in His Majesty's dockyards;

As the answers contain a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps, if any, are being taken to promote the welfare of the British West Indian Sea Island cotton industry; whether any endeavour has been made to rationalise the industry by means of co-operation; in what circumstances was the West Indian Sea Island Cotton Association recently formed in the West Indies, and whether it is represented in England, and, if so, by what body?

A West Indian Sea Island Cotton Association was formed at a conference of producers in November, 1933, to promote the general interests of the industry. At the same time measures were agreed upon which have since been put into operation by the various Colonies concerned for the rationalisation of the industry by the regulation of exports. An advisory committee has been set up to superintend and advise upon the work of the association in this country. A distinctive trade mark is being registered, and the committee has been active in stimulating interest in Sea Island cotton products, with the result that several enterprising manufacturing firms in this country have undertaken the manufacture of Sea Island cotton goods, and have been increasingly successful in developing the market for them.

While thanking my right hon. Friend, may I ask whether we are to understand that the Colonial Office are prepared to help this industry in any way possible?

We have been in it from the start, and I have been in touch not only with the producers but with the firms, and the result has been satisfactory.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will institute an inquiry into the labour disturbances which took place in St. Kitts, British West Indies, on 29th January last and, in particular, why the Governor did not try to negotiate an agreement between the planters and the strikers; why he called out the troops against the strikers; how many people were killed and wounded; and what steps have been taken to investigate the justice of the strikers' demands and to satisfy such as seem reasonable?

I am not at present in possession of all the information for which I have asked the Governor. As regards the latter part of the hon. Member's question, the local defence force were called upon to assist the police, after the latter had been assaulted and stoned, and the mob had refused to disperse; and subsequently, on 31st January, when incendiarism had occurred in the cane fields, a party of marines from one of His Majesty's ships was landed. Three persons were killed and nine wounded on 29th January, when the situation was such that the police were compelled to open fire. As regards the demand of estate labour for higher wages, I may explain that the rates of pay given by planters in St. Kitts-Nevis are dependent on the price paid for canes to the planters by the company operating the St. Kitts sugar factory. This latter question is at present under consideration between the company and the planters.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will institute an inquiry into the whole of the facts, seeing that he has only unofficial information?

I have said that I want to be seized of the full facts before I come to any conclusion.

Is there any board in existence through which the workmen and the planters can express their views and endeavour to come to a settlement in case of a dispute?

Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to inform us how the dispute arose, the wages paid and the real facts of the situation?

I have asked the Governor to send me a full report on the whole situation, and as I am not yet in possession of the facts, I cannot really answer the question.

Shall we have a copy of the report when it is made?

If it is a confidential report I should like to see it first, but I will give the House all relevant facts when I have received them.

; Does my right hon. Friend accept the statement in the question, that the Governor called out the troops against the strikers? Were they not called out to keep order?

I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I think my answer made it perfectly plain that whatever may be the origin of the trouble the police only acted under the greatest provocation and in case of necessity and that the marines and sailors who were landed from the ships were landed for the essential purpose of preserving order.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of twin-engine Virginia-type night-bombers in regular and auxiliary Royal Air Force squadrons; the date of issue of the original specification of this type; whether any of the new squadrons are to use Virginias; and when it is anticipated that these aircraft will be withdrawn from units as obsolete?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air with what type of aeroplane it is intended to arm the new night-bombing squadrons to be formed?

There are two regular and two non-regular squadrons at present equipped with aircraft of this type, which were produced under a specification dated 19th June, 1931. Arrangements have been made for these squadrons to be supplied with aircraft of a later type in the course of the present year. It may be necessary, as a temporary measure, pending delivery of aircraft of a later type, to utilise existing Virginia aircraft to equip the night-bomber squadron which is to be formed this year.

May I ask whether the specifications for the Virginia type which were made in 1931 were a modification of specifications made in 1922, when the first machines were constructed?

They were a modification.

If modifications are considered sufficient for modernising aircraft, why have any further investigations?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the quantity of oil consumed by the Royal Air Force in 1931 and 1934, respectively, specifying the quantity produced at home in each case.

The quantity of lubricating oil consumed by the Royal Air Force in the years quoted was 354,000 and 401,000 gallons respectively. None of this oil was produced from home sources.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what the position is with regard to the prize offered for the best light-type civil aeroplane?

The interests concerned have been consulted, and have raised a number of points in connection with the proposed prize, which are still under consideration.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air, in what way is the Air Ministry encouraging, if at all, the development of the Diesel aeroplane engine?

The Air Ministry has participated in the development of a number of types of compression ignition engines, some of which have been fully type tested and found suitable for incorporation in aircraft. Research on other types is proceeding at experimental establishments and at manufacturers' works.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered giving a prize for the development of this type of engine?

We have not considered that, but we are anxious to encourage it as much as we possibly can.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is in a position to make a statement as to the lighting of the new East Lancashire road, Manchester to Liverpool; and whether the Lancashire County Council have come to a decision?

I have, of course, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, no powers with regard to lighting, and I am informed by the Lancashire County Council that they have decided to leave the lighting of the East Lancashire road to the local authorities through whose areas the road passes. One of the few sections of the road which has been developed, namely, that which passes through the urban district of Swinton and Pendlebury, has already been provided with street lighting by the council of that district.

Will the hon. Gentleman get in touch with the local authorities and use his influence with them to have this road lighted?

I will certainly lay the hon. Member's views before the county council, but I think the situation, on the whole, is not unsatisfactory.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to amend the existing legislation for the speeds of commercial motor vehicles in order that in built-up areas the necessity of pulling out will be reduced?

I find no sufficient ground for asking Parliament to approve a variation of the speed limits imposed on commercial vehicles in the same Act as that which provided for the 30-miles an-hour limit in built-up areas.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps have been taken to improve signposts throughout the country and, in particular, to provide signposts which are illuminated, either positively or by means of reflectors?

In 1933, my Department issued directions requiring the highway authorities to have regard to the new system of signposts recommended by the Committee on Traffic Signs, and throughout the country the old signs are being replaced. The illumination of traffic signs is generally desirable, and in the case of mandatory signs is essential. In this matter, also, considerable progress has been made.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has obtained any returns of the vehicular traffic across the new bridges recently erected over the Thames at Twickenham and Chiswick, respectively; and what was the total expenditure involved in the building of each of these bridges?

Counts will be made in connection with the general census of traffic on Class I roads and bridges in August of this year. The total expenditure involved in building Twickenham and Chiswick Bridges was £230,368 and £204,600, respectively.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that during a great part of each day there is practically no traffic whatever on either of these bridges?

The bridges will not be brought into full use until the Cromwell Road extension has been provided.

How many years will that take?

I have offered terms to the local authorities concerned, and I am waiting to hear of their acceptance or otherwise.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Chiswick Bridge is still subject to the 30 miles-an-hour speed limit?

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received any estimate from the London County Council as to the probable date when the pulling down of Waterloo Bridge will be completed, and when the new bridge to be erected in its place will be available for cross-river traffic?

In the Debate on the London County Council (Money) Bill, which took place in the House on 30th May, 1934, the estimate of time mentioned for the completion of the new bridge was stated as being "within five years." I understand from the Council that no new circumstances have since arisen to require a variation of that estimate, and that the demolition of the bridge is expected to be completed about the middle of 1936.

I beg to move, in page 279, line 30, to leave out from "entitled," to the end of line 31.

I beg to move, in page 279, line 33, at the end, to insert:

"4. There shall be granted to and in respect of the Governor-General and the Governor of every Province such customs privileges as may be specified by Order in Council."

Not only have I sympathy with the arguments of my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment, but I can say that the Government are prepared to accept it. If hon. Members will do me the honour of reading paragraphs 428 and 429 of the Indian States Inquiry Committee's Report, they will see that recommendations on very much the same lines as these were made. I am prepared not only to accept the Amendment but to say that, although one cannot state here the exact terms, broadly speaking the concessions which will be made will be those which are granted to every representative of foreign nations in this country.

Is it possible for distinguished soldiers who go out to fill positions such as that of the Commander-in-Chief, who are in exactly the same position as a Viceroy or Governor, to have the same privilege extended to them? After all, such officers are generally poorer men than the others, and consequently deserve more.

I can safely say that the Government will consider that suggestion.

Lord Sinha was Governor of one of the Indian Provinces for some time, and he, of course, was not a temporary migrant from this country. I take it that in drafting any Order in Council there will of necessity be differential treatment between the persons who go from this country to be Governor-General or Governors, and the person who happens to be domiciled in India and is appointed to a Governorship?

I trust that the Government will not make the differentiation suggested by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). Surely the right ground is that the representative of the King shall not be taxed in this way, and that the privileges which the Chancellor of the Duchy says are extended to members of every foreign State in this country shall be extended, a fortiori, to the personal representative of His Majesty within His Majesty's Dominions.

With great respect, I do not think that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) has appreciated the point. The hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) referred to the imports of goods into the country for the use and convenience of gentlemen holding the office of Governor-General or Governor. If the person appointed to such an office is already resident in India the thing is not quite the same.

He represents the King in the same way.

Then do we understand that the representative of the King, if resident in the country, is to be free Of Excise Duty? Is it the case, for example, that we can ship Scotch whisky to Northern Ireland for the use of the Governor-General of Northern Ireland and that it is to be free of Excise Duty? Let us see where we are going. I can quite understand the position when an Englishman goes from this country and lives in Paris in a house which is part of Great Britain and is treated as part of Great Britain, and what enters that house is duty free because it has not left Great Britain. Certainly the position is that if you are living in an Embassy abroad you can import into that Embassy alcohol produced in this country and consume it free of Excise Duty. Let us be quite clear as to what we are doing. We all want to put these people in a proper position. If someone leaves this country and takes with him all sorts of possessions for his use as Governor-General, those things ought to enter duty free, but if you are to have substantial numbers of persons appointed from the country itself it is necessary to make sure that in doing the right thing in one direction we do not improperly defraud the Revenue.

I know that the practice in this matter, as regards His Majesty's representatives, is not the same in various parts of the Empire. There are Colonies where the Governor is exempt, and Colonies where he is not exempt. But it would not be in order to discuss other parts of the Empire under this Clause. It is not my purpose to say who is or who is not the individual who may be representing His Majesty. It is not in regard to his capacity as an individual but as a representative of His Majesty. In that capacity he should be free to import any goods he wishes to import free of Customs Duty. That is the principle which I wish to introduce under this Clause.

The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has strained at gnats while he is prepared to swallow camels. I am very glad, indeed, to hear what the Government intend to do, and I should be very pleased indeed to hear that wines, spirits and beers are included in the privileges of our Governors-General in addition to furniture and objects of art. It used to be a God-send to our representatives in the United States under prohibition that they were able to get a decent drink, and I hope that that privilege will be enjoyed by the Governor-General of India.

I beg to move, in page 281, line 21, after "Federation," to insert:

"or, if it is so prescribed with respect to any Province, the Ruler or a subject of any prescribed Indian State."

"'prescribed' means prescribed by His Majesty in Council or, so far as regards any matter which under this Act the Federal Legislature or the Governor-General are competent to regulate, prescribed by an Act of that Legislature or by a rule made under the next succeeding paragraph."

We are now discussing the eligibility of people for seats in the Provincial Legislature, and the making of it possible for any Ruler or subject in a prescribed Indian State to be eligible for a seat in the Provincial Legislature. I understand there are over 600 of these Rulers, great and small, and it is just possible that this particular proposal is intended to cover Rulers of very small States negligible in size. As it now stands, it will be possible for a Ruler of a large State—Hyderabad or any of the others—who happens to possess a piece of territory inside the Province to be admitted to a seat.

It depends on the rules which are prescribed as to that matter. Subject to that qualification the hon. Member is right, but it would depend on the prescription by the rules.

I am not sure to what rules the hon. and learned Gentleman is alluding. Is it the rules governing election? While he is looking up that point, may I mention another? I am not stating the difficulty on behalf of my friends at all; it is one that occurred to me personally. A Ruler, strictly speaking, is not a subject of His Majesty the King. He is an independent authority. In a way, he is a foreign Power. How comes it then that we are making provision for one who is a foreign potentate to be eligible for a seat in a Provincial Assembly inside the Empire? It is a technical matter, I know, and perhaps there is nothing in it, but I would like to have it made clear.

The idea is to bring the matter into line with the Amendment made earlier in the discussion. There is a large and powerful class in the commercial community and in various walks of life who are technically State subjects—who are engaged in business and various occupations all over India—known as the Marwaris. They were people born in the North-West. It would be a great pity and a loss to the public life of India if they were excluded from taking any part in the Legislatures in the Provinces in which they have settled. The main purpose of the Amendment is to enable them to be eligible for election in order to take part in the public life in that part of India in which they have settled, although technically they are State subjects of another part. That is the basis of the Amendment which has already been carried, and this Amendment we are now discussing follows as a consequence.

I call see that, but an in dividual Ruler may personally decide not to accede to the Federation, and by reason of owning property in a particular Province he will, because of this particular Motion, be entitled to sit, not in the Federal, but in the Provincial Assembly. There may not be much in this matter, and I am not raising it as an insuperable difficulty, but it seems to me somewhat incongruous that a Ruler, who is in his own person a foreign person and who may have elected to be out of the Federation entirely, may still be entitled to become a member of the Provincial Assembly according to the wording of this Amendment. I do not know quite where we are.

Perhaps I may be able to clear the hon. Gentleman's mind when I tell him that the position which he regards with so much anxiety is the position which obtains under the Electoral Rules under the present Act in relation to the Provincial Legislative bodies. There is no objection under the existing rules of the present Government of India Act to a Ruler of a native State—or, it may be said, a foreign State in one sense—being eligible to sit in the Provincial Assembly. In future, there will be this new circumstance that the person in question may not have acceded to the Federation, but, speaking for myself, I am not sure that that makes any difference at all.

I would like to say, a plague on both your parties. On sound, general principles, why not give the electors the widest possible choice? I do not see why they should not be allowed to elect a clergyman in this country. Why not allow them to elect Americans?

We do.

In any case, it is anti-democratic to attempt in any way to restrict the choice of these people. It is perfectly true they will probably choose the wrong people. They will probably choose the landlords. It might be of advantage if they chose Marwaris instead, who belong to the State of Marwar which seems to export more people into India than any other State. They keep their accounts in an unknown language, and they do not speak English.

I do not wish to intervent in the controversy as to whether the Rulers should be in or out in this case, except to say that, if we are working towards unity in India, it is essential, even for those States not within the Federation, that we should do all we can to get their services in the Federation wherever possible. The Amendment is a peculiarly clumsy wording of a provision that could have been equally well secured by omitting the words in the Schedule:

"Which has acceded to the Federation."

"A person…unless he is a British subject or the Ruler or a subject of an Indian State "

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) for his help in trying to draft the Bill, but if he will look a little more into the matter he will see that it was necessary in relation to the persons concerned in the Amendment to prescribe, with regard to any particular province, the provisions as to the person mentioned in the Bill. It stands absolute and is not governed by any rules or regulations. I hope that my hon. Friend will not proceed further to differ from me.

I understood from the previous speech of my right hon. and learned Friend that they were covered in page 261. If I am wrong, I apologise to the Committee for having been misled by my right hon. and learned Friend in his previous speech, which seemed to make the matter clear. Now it is more complicated.

What is the matter with the wording of the previous Amendment on the Order Paper—in page 281, line 21, leave out, "which has acceded to the Federation"—which has not been called? It seems to attain exactly the same object in simple language.

That is the very point which I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams).

It is because I am afraid that the simplicity which my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) wishes may come about, that I wish to say a few words on the matter. In view of the desire that we all have that the Marwaris should be able to take part in the public life of India, the rules laid down should make it clear that there must be either continuity of residence in the Province in which they are to take part, or some sort of interest, and no possibility whatever that, by this provision, subjects of an Indian State which has not acceded will be able to put themselves forward as candidates. My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned that the rules would probably cover something of that kind, but the Committee ought to have an assurance that rules will be of that character. It is a very important point, and I want to be sure that members of an Indian State which has not acceded to Federation conform to the rules.

I understand that the next two Amendments on the Order Paper are to be taken together.

I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee, as the next two Amendments really come to the same thing, if we discussed them together, and it will be understood that if there is a desire for the second Amendment to be called, it will only be for the purposes of a Division.

I beg to move, in page 281, line 23, to leave out "twenty-five," and to insert "twenty-one."

Was not that before he was Prime Minister?

It was before he reached the position of Prime Minister. It has also been suggested that this House would be benefited and improved by an infusion of youth. If that is the case here, surely it is more necessary in India. I see no reason at all why in India the age should be from 25 to 30. Life is short in India. Under the burning rays of the tropical sun not only is life shorter, but maturity is reached at an earlier age. In India a man of 60 is practically an old man and out of life altogether; in this country he is on the point of becoming an Under-Secretary. I am reminded of a verse of poetry which I read recently. It runs as follows:

"Join hands with youth: The heart is never old

That keeps its touch within the dancers' ring.

Be slow to break it: neither right nor gold

Avails to mend a quarrel with the Spring."

Far be it from me to wish to raise the age of candidates for membership of the Provincial Council or Provincial Assembly in India. I sympathise with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) has said, but I do not feel that we are engaged in a quarrel with Indian youth if we adhere to the proposals which have been set forth in the Bill. These matters were considered exhaustively before the publication of the White Paper. They were included in the White Paper, and were approved also by the Joint Select Committee. I do not say that in that latter body there were as many young men as I would have liked to have seen myself. I sometimes felt rather lonely, but there was great wisdom in that body. Very often the best results in politics are achieved by the enthusiasm of youth and by the wisdom of old age. This decision was arrived at as a result of that combination. The age for the elector will be 21, which, I think, the hon. Member will agree, is quite fair, and the age for a member of the Provincial Assembly will be 25 and for a member of the Provincial Upper House, 30. We think that in view of the dilatory nature of the powers of the Upper House, it is important that a certain wisdom should inspire those who are members of it, and I am informed and advised that that wisdom can be achieved at the age of 30. In the same way we are told that 25 is a suitable age for members of the Lower House. I therefore regret to say that. I am unable, on behalf of the Government, to accept the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member.

For once I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), who has moved the Amendment. It is a rare occurrence, and one should have it placed on record. I can see the argument which has been advanced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary with regard to the Council of State, but with regard to the Lower House, I cannot see any reason why anyone who is capable of voting should not also be capable of taking part in the public life of the country. I do not think that the argument that the age is all right over here is necessarily a very sound one, but if this rule had applied over here he and I would have narrowly escaped having to wait before adding our deliberations to this House. There is a great deal of nonsense talked about youth, as there is about old age, but I do not believe that a young man or an old man as such is necessarily better for being so. You get brilliant young men just as you get brilliant old men. If you are to have a choice of this kind, the widest scope should be allowed for the choice of the electors, and therefore I regret that the Government refuse to allow people, though they are old enough to vote and take the initial decision, to carry out their decisions when taken. I do not suppose that hon. Members opposite will press the Amendment to a Division, but the Government might very well have considered making the concession. The argument in favour of it seemed to be sound, except in so far as it was an outcome of the Joint Select Committee, which, I confess, does not commend itself to me. There was no real argument advanced on the other side by the Under-Secretary.

Here again why fetter the choice of the electorate? There must be some reason for it, and no reason has so far been advanced. When there was any doubt as to what practice should be followed in India preference should have been given to our own practice, unless adequate reasons were given for making a distinction. This House, which has made English liberty and created the British Empire, was founded by constituencies being allowed freely to choose any residents from any part of England, anybody they liked at any age they liked. An hon. Member sat for Dorset at the age of 15—a very proper age. A number of Members have sat before they were of age, and in one Parliament no fewer than 30 were under age. They have not made many mistakes in this country, and why, when our record is all in favour of youth, should we, when we turn to India, come to an entirely different decision? I will suggest one reason. It is that this question has not been, considered in the least by the politicians. It has solely been considered by the permanent officials at the India Office, and they have an instinctive dislike for any form of English Parliamentary practice. They have voted communal representation, which we are discussing later on. They have discussed this new method of limiting the choice of the electorate, and they have, all unwittingly, foisted it upon right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who do not really think that there is any advantage in the thing at all.

Aged?

I said "aged." Even my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) is not so young as he was. Just consider what a board of directors would decide if it came to the issue whether a director should resign at the age of 85. All the directors of 85 would be unanimously in favour of extending their service until 90. It is obvious, if you restrict candidates for any constituency to those over 30, that the people over 30 have a vested interest in keeping the age high, and the older they get the higher the age becomes. It is really the creation of a vested interest in antiquity. As my hon. and gallant Friend behind me said, in India they die young. They used to die at the age of 50 in this country with regularity, but now, thank goodness, they do not. In India they die young, and to restrict a man's political career to a span of 15 or 20 years is absurd. What I want to have from some hon. Members opposite is an argument, not drawn from the authority of the India Office, but drawn from English practice and common sense, as to why we should inflict this arbitrary restriction on the choice of the electorate in the Provinces of India.

I should like to point out to the last speaker that the Indian of 21 and 25 has not the experience of public matters that the ordinary individual of 21 and 25 has in this country. I think the Government are quite right in fixing the ages they have fixed. There is the old maxim that the young man thinks the old man a fool, but the old man knows the young man is a fool. When the Conservative party was enlarging the franchise in 1924 and 1925 many thought it would be very desirable to raise the age of the electors from 21 to 25. There is no doubt whatever that you can get wisdom at 21, but you are more likely to get it at 25 or 30.

I hope the Government will not give way on this question. It pains me to find myself differing from my right hon. and gallant Friend, and the hon. Gentleman who has spoken over there, but it is true, as the hon. Member who has just resumed his seat says, that the vast majority of people, certainly in the Conservative party, if they had the chance again would decide that the political age in this country ought to be not under 25. I will say just a word about the scorn of my friends in the Socialist party. Generally speaking, it was felt that had the political age been 25 for both sexes it would have given more general satisfaction, and there would not have been quite such alarm as there sometimes is at youth being carried away by some too enthusiastic cry, to which they have not given a great deal of study. It is because I feel that the Government has gone too far in introducing a franchise of 21 that I think the least they can do is to say that the age of 25 is the limit for election to the Assembly.

I agree thoroughly with what has just been said as to the wisdom of making the political age 25. When this House was engaged in granting the franchise to women, Sir Thomas Davis, who was then the Member for Cirencester, and I put down an Amendment that all should have the franchise at 25. We carried that to a Division and the result, as far as I remember the figures, was that 17 Members voted for the proposal and some 325 against. That only proves that there were 17 sensible Members in the House of Commons.

I beg to move in page 281, line 24, to leave out "thirty," and to insert "twenty-one."