REGISTRATION BILL [LORDS]. (Hansard, 17 July 1908)

§ SIR E. CARSON (Dublin University)
who was almost inaudible in the Gallery was understood to ask a question as to the meaning of a certain phrase in the clause.

§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,) South Shields
said the words were a repetition of the words of the existing Act and had no purpose what- 1324 ever in this Bill except with regard to the change of dates. They only treated with the principal Act, but as a change was being made in the dates, it was necessary that they should be put in.

§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (Worcestershire, E.)
asked the hon. and learned Member to read the section of the Act to which he referred. These words were apparently meaningless. He presumed the claimant might state his case whether the appellant signed it or not. The principal Act was quite superfluous; was it necessary, therefore, to repeat the superfluity? This was surely a happy opportunity of getting rid of it. They might for once simplify legislation, and the Attorney-General could employ his Saturday afternoon in doing it.

§ SIR E. CARSON (Dublin University)
said he thought the Bill was very curiously drawn: "If he approves the same, he shall sign the same as directed by the said section," but what did the "said section" refer to?

§ SIR W. ROBSON
said the right hon. Gentleman seemed to assume that it was the duty of the law officer to carry in his head every section of every Act, and every part of it. This was not a general amendment of the registration law; he could not imagine any time less favourable for a general amendment of the law. The purposes of the Bill was to amend the registration law in respect solely and simply to certain proceedings in connection with appeals. In the old days the Long Vacation ended on 24th October, and the Michaelmas Sittings began, and the dates fixed by the Statute with regard to registration appeals were all fixed with reference to the first day of the Michaelmas Sittings. It was directed that the Revision Courts should sit between the 8th September and the 12th October; it was also directed that if any appeal were made, the Revising Barrister should draw up a statement of facts within ten days from the conclusion of the revision and within four days before the first day of the Michaelmas Term, so that if they had a revision concluding on the 12th October the Barrister would get at lease eight days. The appellant, if he desired to go on with his appeal, would have to give notice within four days, and then it was directed that the Court should sit after the fourth day. Every one of those dates had become inappropriate by the change of the date in which the Michaelmas sittings now began. They now began on 12th October instead of On 24th October, and therefore the Revising Barrister could not comply with the law which directed him within four days before the beginning of the Michaelmas term to let his statement of facts be in the hands of the appellant. The object of the Bill was simply to enable the Revising Barrister to get his statement in, the appellant to give his four days notice; and to postpone the sitting of the Court until the 26th October. It was not at all the intention of the Bill to deal with the amendment of the registration law in any other particular than those which concerned these dates.

§ SIR WILLIAM BULL (Hammersmith)
asked whether the Attorney-General could not alter the law in one single paragraph so as to deal with the case where a Revising Barrister submitted a statement of facts with which the appellant did not agree, but upon which he was forced to base his appeal. If they were carrying through a small amendment; of the law the Attorney-General might have put in a short clause by which that particular hardship might be done away with.

§ SIB W. ROBSON
said this Bill did not concern the case of "Kent v. Fittall," which had to do with the general registration law.

§ SIR WILLIAM BULL
asked why the Bill was brought forward.

§ SIR W. ROBSON
said it was simply and solely to alter the dates in order to meet the change in the termination of the Long Vacation.

§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said he was not so unreasonable as the Attorney-General thought. He did not expect him to carry every clause of every statute in his head, but he expected of him what was commonly expected of Ministers, viz., that they should be in possession of sufficient information to explain the Bill of which they were momentarily in charge. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he would have been better equipped if he had had notice of the question, but some of them on that side would also have been better equipped if they had known that the Government intended to proceed late on a Friday afternoon with this Bill. Having said so much, he only wanted to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to look at the words to which his right hon. and learned friend had called attention—the words "the said section." That was really language imported from another statute, but was it the appropriate language here? It must refer to some section mentioned in the Bill, but no such section was mentioned. They had to look at the Act to which this Bill referred, and then at another Act to which that Act referred, and then he 1327 believed they would have some kind of an idea of what the promoters of the Bill intended to convey. The words "the said section" meant nothing at all in this Bill.

§ SIR F. BANBURY
said the hon. and learned Gentleman was quite correct when he said that he attempted to explain this Bill on the previous day, when there was rather a disposition on the part of the House to take his explanation, and not to proceed with the consideration of the Bill. He must point out, however, that they had had a very hard week, and it was late, and they were extremely tired. The hon. and learned Gentleman had told them that the Bill was merely brought in in order to make an alteration in the date for appeals, and that being so they made no objection and allowed the Bill to go through. It was certainly not anticipated that the Committee stage would be taken that afternoon, and, as it was a legal Bill requiring careful consideration, he suggested that further proceedings on it should be adjourned till Monday. It was another instance of the great mistake made by hon. Gentlemen opposite with the idea that they would benefit legislation by forcing these things through. It was very advisable that they should know what they were doing, especially in regard to registration. He moved that they should report progress and ask leave to sit again.