CLAUSE 11.—(Registration Duties.) (Hansard, 27 June 1917)

§ The CHAIRMAN
The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Somerset (Mr. King), proposing to compile the register "in accordance with the registration rules," seems to me unnecessary. As to the second Amendment, in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Christchurch (General Croft), which suggests the compilation of the register "after revision," I should like to know if it is intended to precede subsequent Amendments?

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
It was felt best to put this Amendment where it is, as a preliminary, perhaps, to a considerable number of other Amendments.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
On a point of Order. I would suggest that it should be laid down at once by whom the list shall be revised. As it stands at present the Clause would enable the registration officer "to compile the spring and autumn register." What we desire is that there shall be some independent person to revise the list, and see that it has been properly done. Therefore, we want to put in words to that effect. I personally deprecate, as my right hon. Friend opposite—

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Baronet had better keep to the point of Order.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I think I have made the matter clear.

§ The CHAIRMAN
That is all I want. I would observe a number of Amendments later on the Paper which seem to propose to resuscitate the revising barrister, and I presumed that these words were leading up to these Amendments. If that is so, perhaps we had better take the Amendment here. My point is that the words here must say that the revision has to be done by somebody. The words suggested by the hon. Member raise the point that the revision is to be done by a revising barrister, or by a revising officer, or by 433 the Court, or whatever words are suggested by the hon. Gentleman. The words I suggest should be, "after revision by a revising barrister."

§ Sir G. CAVE
On a point of Order. This really, I think, is not the right way to raise the matter, because, according to my hon. Friend's view, the clerk should compile the list before revision.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Yes.

§ Sir G. CAVE
And then have it revised by a revising barrister? I suggest that the right place for this discussion is Clause 12, where the point is raised.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
On a point of Order. Would it not be better to insert "after revision as hereinafter provided"? We do not quite know, supposing we were to carry this, who the particular official would be. If, however, it is put in "as hereinafter provided," that would meet the point. There would be some person who would fulfil the duties if he were appointed.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think I must have the thing more definite than that. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs proposes some words after the word "compile," which, I think, would really raise and settle the question now.

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
Yes, "after revision."

§ The CHAIRMAN
After "compiled," or after "revision"?

§ Sir C. HOBHOUSE
Should not the words, whatever they are, come in after the word "place" ["and to place, or cause to be placed"]?

§ The CHAIRMAN
What words would follow "after revision"?

§ Sir F. BANBURY
"By the revising officer."

§ Sir C. HOBHOUSE
No matter what the words are, would they not better come in as I have suggested after the word "place"?

§ The CHAIRMAN
My difficulty is not as to the place where the words should be inserted. There are several places where they could come in. But wherever they come in I think I must have some words that will mean something definite to precede what is the real proposal in the subsequent Amendments. I gather from 434 what the hon. Baronet has said that this is, or is-meant to be, part of a scheme. All I want to understand is what the scheme is.

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
The point really is the Home Secretary does not see his way to accept the suggested Amendment in any form. The Amendment was put down in case it might be necessary to-have it there in consequence of the Amendments that are to follow, and which might be expected. I do not know whether they will or will not be moved. I am in very considerable doubt, after what the right hon. Gentleman has said; as to whether the words are really necessary. I am rather inclined to raise the-matter later on Clause 12.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I will not rule it out on Clause 12 on the ground of the absence of these words.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Might I suggest that it would be much better to have the argument on this Clause, especially in. relation to "the duty of the registration officer to compile the spring and autumn register, and place or cause to be placed, on the register," and so on, "after revision by the revising officer." That will bring in the whole thing. It appoints a definite officer, and it enables us to ascertain whether or not the Home-Secretary will accept the Amendment. Surely it would be better to do that now than to raise it later on Clause 12?

§ The CHAIRMAN
It does not matter to me which way the thing is done. There is an Amendment by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford University on Clause 12 to insert the words, "a revising barrister," who is to hear the appeal. That is the Amendment to which I presume these words are running. If an Amendment is moved here and another later, it will, in effect, be two Amendments on the one subject.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Surely it would be better to move the Amendment now? I trust my hon. Friend opposite will move it now in the form "after revision by a revising officer." If my hon. Friend likes, I will move that now.

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
Very well, I wish to go out in a little while

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Then I beg to move in Sub-section (1), after the word "com- 435 pile" ["to compile the spring and autumn register"], to insert the words, "after revision by a revising officer."
I would advance the argument that there ought to be some check on the registration officer. No doubt the registration officer will endeavour in ninety-nine cases out of 100 to do his duty properly, but, is my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Bridgwater Division a few moments ago wanted to point out, the work may be done by a registration officer who has political bias. You cannot help that occurring. The better a man is, the stronger is his political bias. That being so, I do not think anybody will argue—not even my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith—that the registration officer is not bound to have political bias on one side or the other. Therefore, it is much better to bring in somebody who shall have the duty imposed upon him of revising the register. It does not follow that it will be a very arduous duty. But there should be someone to check the work. I myself have very great faith in a check. You cannot carry on your business unless you have your cheek In my opinion, a check is absolutely necessary "upon the registration officer. I really do hope that the Home Secretary will seriously consider this, and accept the Amendment. I admit that the form in which the Amendment stands does not seem very clear, but I trust that I have made it clear.

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
I presume the Debate on this question will be taken now. I would like to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that the next Clause deals with rather a different point. The next Clause deals with an appeal on a point of law. Most of us who know anything about the Scottish system of registration object to the appeal being on a point of law, and consider that it ought to be on a point of fact. Speaking from a great deal of experience, I can assure hon. Members that our system, if it is to be adopted at all, ought to be carried out in its entirety, and not partially. At present we have our lists made up by a Government assessor who is a perfectly independent person, and really does not, I think, require very much revision; but such revision as the lists do undergo is conducted by the sheriff of the county in open court, where everybody concerned can 436 appear, and where the whole of the facts of the case are open. That is the system 1 should like to see adopted. I hope subsequent Amendments will make it that some other person than the registration officer shall revise the lists prepared by that officer We are having a very different class of registration under the Bill to that heretofore. I am thankful to say we are not dealing with Scotland. Scottish registration laws remain what they were; and we are thankful for that mercy. In England you may have all sorts of people, some none too competent or too well up in their duties, learning all the time, and it is most essential that some one other than the particular individual should revise the lists It is not, of course, contended that a man should revise his own lists. I hope, therefore, my right hon. and learned Friend will look into this point again, and see whether, at this stage, it is not just as well to deal with the question of revision. The other point of appeal in the next Clause is rather a different matter.

§ Mr. GOLDSTONE
It seems to me that this Amendment raises directly the issues of the retention of the revising barrister. The purpose, or one of the purposes, to be effected by the Resolutions of the Conference is to get rid of the revising barrister, and it seems to me that that is a very desirable thing. We are putting up in the first place a competent official, and I have no reason to think that he will be less competent than a similar individual in Scotland, about which there seemed to be some doubt expressed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger). If we are to retain the revising barrister we shall retain with him all the machinery of the party agents arguing before him, while the idea surely was to get rid of that. There may be some cases I doubt whether there will be very many, but let us assume there are a few—where a question of difficulty arises, possibly on fact, possibly on law. As far as the point of law is concerned, there is the opportunity to appeal in the case of the few difficulties that are likely to arise, in the first instance, to the County Court, and then to the Appeal Court. I dare say there might be a few cases while the scheme was being put into operation, but these decisions having been given they will be in the nature of leading cases to the registration officers of the country, most of 437 whom, being the clerks to the county councils or town clerks, will have had legal experience already and will be very responsible persons who, if they make a mistake, will be liable to be called to book by their respective councils. I hope we shall not go back to the system of the Revision Court, with all that it means, but that we shall stick to the machinery set up in the Bill, which seems to me to be adequate to the case.

Mr. CHANCELLOR
I sincerely hope that the Amendment will be defeated. I understood that one of the objects of the Bill was to simplify the operation of registration and make things easy for the persons to be registered. The retention of the revising barrister will involve the maintenance of the old political organisations on the old lines, as well as unnecessary expense. If the Government accept the Amendment, which appears later on the Paper, to allow questions of fact to come in under the appeals to the County Court everything, in my opinion, is provided for without the introduction of the revising barrister.

§ Mr. GILBERT
I want to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Goldstone) and the hon. Member for Haggerston (Mr. Chancellor). I sincerely hope that the Government will not accept the Amendment. Those of us who have had any connection with registration for years past are all anxious that we should do away with the revising barrister's Court. Apparently it was necessary under the old registration law which this Act is doing away with, because you had different qualifications and legal points which arose in which it was necessary to have a legal decision which could only be given by a revising barrister. Under this Act all that kind of thing has been done away with, and the thing to be decided is mainly the question of fact, as to whether a person has lived for six months in a certain residence. I venture to suggest to the Committee that that is a matter which can quite easily be decided by the registration officer to be appointed under the Act, who in many cases will be the local town clerk or clerk to the county council. I hope that later on, on the next Clause, we shall be able to have an appeal as regards the question of fact in the appeal to the County Court which is provided by Clause 12. As I have said before in the previous dis- 438 cussions on this Bill, one of the reasons why I am strongly in favour of it is because it simplifies our electoral law, and I am quite certain that if we go back to revising barristers, and have all the paraphernalia of revising barristers, we are going back to the condition in which we were before, and that we are asking for opposition from all sorts of people who will claim to go on the list. I believe under the new six months' qualification we have mainly, or only, the question of fact, and I believe that the procedure provided for in Clause 12, with the proposed Amendments which I hope the Government will accept, will provide all that is necessary.

§ Mr. MACMASTER
If a revising authority is to intervene at the stage suggested it is a complete reversal of the whole scheme contained in this Bill. The idea was in framing these Clauses, and the provisions on which they are based, that we should get rid of the revising barrister altogether, particularly in view of the fact that the system will be very much simplified. It seems to me that if a responsible person is appointed registration officer we must trust to him in this matter. After him, what is the recourse if we are dissatisfied? It is to the County Court, but that may be too limited. It is only an appeal in respect of questions of law, and I agree with those hon. Members who say that there must be some protection against the prejudice of the officer who determines the list in the first instance. I think that can be solved by allowing the appeal to the County Court to be in respect not only of law but of fact. It is clear that the County Court cannot dispose of all the cases; hence the provision for deputy judges, pro tem, to be appointed. Then there is the further appeal from the County Court, and in respect of that I suggest that the appeal should only be on points of law.

§ Mr. C. ROBERTS
I think some hon. Members will be influenced by what the Government will say when we come to Clause 12. I do not feel quite satisfied with the infallibility of the registration officer in matters of fact, and that there should be no check on his decision. I do not think that will always inspire confidence. If the Government means to extend the appeal to the County Court, under Clause 12, so that it shall relate to matters of fact as well as to matters of law, then I, personally, should be quite 439 satisfied. If that is not the case, I am inclined to think there might be some reason for some kind of check in revision. Perhaps the Government will tell us what they mean to do on that point, and if they do so I am sure a great deal of unnecessary discussion on this Amendment will be saved.

§ Sir G. CAVE
Of course, it is quite right to keep separate in our minds the question raised in this Amendment under Clause 11 and the question of appeal under Clause 12. This Amendment provides not for an appeal from the decision given by the registration officer but for getting the assistance and control in the Court of revision of some revising officer. In fact, the proposal is that there should be a kind of double revision of the list every half-year. I think that would become a rather burdensome thing. For myself, I think that to adopt this Amendment would be to fly in the face of one of the main objects of the Speaker's Conference. I think it was the desire of the Conference that there should be an official register under which it shall be the duty of a responsible officer, who must be an experienced and capable man, to put people upon this register automatically without their having to go time after time to make a claim, and without having the whole system of agents, and so on. The whole point is to get a proper official register, which will go on by itself without constant interference by agents and those who are claiming the vote. If, therefore, we can get that I think it is worth having. I am not wanting in sympathy for the revising barrister. As an individual I know him very well, and I have a great respect for him; but I think it would be a good thing to get rid of the revision Court, which has given rise to great loss of time, if we can do so without injustice to the individual.
I agree with the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. C. Roberts) that the view the Committee may take on this Amendment may fairly be affected by the decision likely to be arrived at on the question arising on Clause 12. Clause 12 gives at present an appeal from the registration officer on questions of law only to the County Court, the effect, of course, being that on all questions of fact the decision of the registration officer is final. I waited to hear what hon. Members thought on that point, and, having heard their views, I am bound to say that I 440 agree with them to a great extent. I think it is a little dangerous to leave to one man, however capable and desirous of doing his duty he may be, the right to give a final decision on all questions of fact. I do not want to anticipate the decision on Clause 12, because some Members may come into the House and take a different view, as sometimes happens. At present I gather that the view of hon. Members who are in the House is that there should be an appeal given on questions of fact as well as on questions of law. I think I am entitled to say that on the present material that is my view, and that we should make that change. If, however, that change is to be made, I think it better not to make the change contained in the Amendment.

§ Mr. R. McNEILL
Several hon. Members have said that they are very anxious to get rid of all the paraphernalia of the revision Courts and of the party agents appearing before those Courts, while the Home Secretary has said that that is an object of the Bill, and that that was the proposal of the Speaker's Conference. As to that, I dare say we are all agreed; but I think hon. Members are still suffering from illusions to imagine that that result is going to follow from this Bill, whether this Amendment is put in or not. There are hon. Members who overlook the rules set out in the Schedule, in which very elaborate provision is made for the hearing of objections, and claims, and so forth. The only difference is that you are calling the revising barrister by a new name. Instead of having all the work done at the instance of the party agents before a revising barrister you are going to have exactly the same work, and a great deal more, done, not before a revising barrister, but before county council clerks in the counties and town clerks in the towns. Of course, I admit that the simplification of the franchise does probably enable that work to be done by an unskilled man, from the lawyer's point of view, whereas under the complicated and complex franchise hitherto existing it was more necessary to employ a skilled lawyer, and therefore I am not prepared to say that that work may not be done, and thoroughly done, by the clerk to the county council or by the town clerk, as the case may be. But do not let hon. Members suppose that that work of revision, the machinery of which is provided in the Schedule, is going to be done without the appearance before 441 these officers of the party agents, with all the machinery of objection, or of supporting the claim or objection by evidence. That will all go on exactly as it has done before, the only difference being that owing to various provisions in the Bill—especially, as I think, owing to the particular manner in which Clause 1 is drafted, to which I took objection at the time we were considering that Clause—there will be a very large number of perfectly unnecessary objections in order that in the very short time open for the investigation of these claims the party agents may have an opportunity of going into the cases to see whether they tan support them or not. So far, therefore, as expense and the work of the party agents are concerned, I do not think there is the slightest difference introduced by this Bill. I am not really very much concerned one way or the other as to whether this Amendment is accepted or not, but I do think that, considering that the work will have to be done, it would be rather better that it should be well done than ill done. Unless it can be shown, too, that the revision suggested by this Amendment would ensure a more efficient administration of the Act I should like to see the Amendment inserted in the Clause.

§ Mr. H. P. HARRIS
I think the Amendment on the Paper would give a right of appeal to the County Court on questions of fact as well as of law. The Conference recommended that the County Courts should take the place of a revising barrister, but the revising barrister would exercise some judicial functions. I hope the matter may be dealt with on Clause 12.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I am in the recollection of what took place at the Conference. We agreed to do away with the revising barristers, and as a substitute the question of the County Court arose. But there was a question as to whether the County Courts would be able to do the work and whether they were not already very much occupied. As far as my memory goes, that question was shelved. I do not know that it was proceeded with further, at all events while I was present. I think it was suggested that there should be some additional judges appointed to assist—at any rate I am quite certain while I was there it was held that putting this work on the County Courts would cause an enormous increase in the work 442 of the Courts with which it was practically certain they could not cope. The hon. Member misunderstood the effect of my Amendment. It is for the provision of a revising officer; there is nothing about a barrister in it. It may be in a consequential Amendment that "barrister" appears. It would be quite easy to alter that in the only place where the consequential Amendment might allow of "revising officer" being put. Let me put the reasons why I think the difficulty has arisen in respect of the necessity for a revision of this sort. I raised the question of the County Courts. There would be an enormous amount of additional work thrown on the County Courts. Whoever has performed the duty, this will entail an enormous amount of work upon the County Courts, and cannot we do something to lessen that work in the least expensive way? That is the object of my Amendment, that the registration officer should have somewhere where he can do what is necessary. I do not mean to say that there should be a Court, and three or four rooms in which applicants are to appear before some official, but where they can go and be able to say to him "such-and-such is my name, and J do not happen to be on the register," or to point out some person who is there and should not be there. If they cannot do that, the next procedure will be to go to the County Court and have the matter investigated there. There would be an enormous amount of work, but to put, as the Bill now stands, in the hands of one officer, from whom there could be no appeal except on a question of law, the sole power of determining whether the applicant should or should not be on the register is a mistake, and will lead to complication. We ought to have a registration officer. It is said he may have a little bias, and he cannot avoid it, but it is absolutely necessary, in my opinion, that there should be an independent officer who will have the power of checking the list. In some divisions there are always some persons who know the law in connection with registration, and if an advisory officer could be appointed it would save a great many appeals, and a great deal of work which will otherwise go to the County Court.

§ Sir HARRY SAMUEL
My recollection of what happened at the Conference was that it was never the intention to substitute the County Court for one minute 443 I say the registration officer should do the work primarily and the appeals should go to the County Court, but it was thought that they would have more work than they could take. As I understand the Home Secretary intends to make an alteration in Clause 12, it will be in order there.

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
The alteration of the Home Secretary is entirely my view of the whole Amendment. In Scotland there is a Court which is the equivalent of the County Court here. In this case the whole system is easier, and I think it would be a great mistake to have a double revision.

§ Mr. CAUTLEY
I am going to suggest to the Home Secretary a way out of the difficulty. If he would have assistant overseers responsible for the list in the first instance, and then a registration officer in the position of a revising barrister, you would have a more equitable basis and the change the hon. Member desires. Some such change, I think, is necessary. I am at a loss to understand why a departure has been made in the present case. I have no schedules before me, but, going back a century up to the present time, the assistant overseer, except in London, is responsible for revising the lists, and it seems to me something could be done in this direction here. I have an Amendment by which the returning officer may employ the assistant overseer. If the assistant overseer is made responsible you get a system and a regular scheme of bringing appeals before the revising barrister, who is independent, and a system for appeal to the county court on the question of law. So far as London is concerned, I can see no objection. The borough council is responsible for the whole of this, but I believe, as a matter of fact, they depute their duties to the borough engineer, or the borough treasurer, or someone of that kind.

§ Mr. ROWLANDS
I should like to say a few words, having had some practical experience of registration difficulties such as those foreshadowed by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. One great reform has been fought for for years. I remember a Bill being introduced some thirty years ago to get rid of the machinery of the revising barrister and set up a substantial person as a registration officer. We all know that under the old system of overseers you have 444 no one responsible. If you had a responsible person to issue the list of voters I do not think there would have been any difficulties. I remember the time in London when the overseers made up the lists of their boroughs themselves. They had not, however, a lot of claims with regard to householders, but there were great difficulties with regard to objections. When starting at Hackney they created a registration office with a registration officer. They could not afford to do it, so they appointed a registration clerk. He commenced, so far as the law allowed him, to compile a list, and it was of a most interesting and astonishing character of the way things had been managed. They got a complete list of householders, but there was the difficulty as regards lodgers, and the party agents had to do the whole work of the lodger franchise. As you have had a responsible registration officer taking these lists and issuing them and having, the power under the law of challenging any statements you will have all the protection of the Act that may be necessary.
I do not myself believe that, after the first registration, there will be anything like this flood of cases in the County Court. The points will be settled. The simplicity of the qualification removes, nine-tenths of the difficulties that existed previously. I do not for a moment think you will do away with party agents. I believe they will assist you, and I believe in connection with registration work, with efficient registration offices, their work will be much less than at the present time. With regard to partisanship, the individual will be responsible to the authorities above him, and if in any case a great scandal arises—and it must be a great scandal to be at all effective—in which a person holding the position of registration officer is guilty of gerrymandering, I believe he would very soon be out of his position, and my experience is that these officials, while they may have strong partisan opinions, being in these permanent jobs, naturally have a strong desire to keep them. I am glad the Home Secretary is going to stand by the Clause.

Mr. DENNISS
I would like to appeal to the Home Secretary to consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend opposite, because the registration officer appointed under Clause 10 really performs two-functions. He performs the function at present discharged by the assistant overseer in compiling the list, and he also 445 performs the function of the revising barrister. If the assistant-overseer continues to be the person who compiles the list in the first instance, the registration officer can then act as a sort of revising barrister, and then the appeal will lie to the County Court. If you do not have these two authorities the registration officer has the whole thing in his own hands, and, under Clause 12, there is to be no appeal against any decision of the registration officer upon a question of fact only or upon the admissibility or effect of any evidence or admission adduced or made in any case to establish any matter of fact only. Therefore, nobody can overrule his decision on facts in any circumstances, and it is only when you can show that he is wrong in law that you can question his decisions. If he goes ever so wrong, as he possibly may, being a layman, on questions of fact, he cannot be questioned in any way. If the overseer prepares the list, as he did before, let the registration officer then perform the function of the revising barrister by checking the list, and then the appeal would go to the County Court in the usual way. I hope the Home Secretary will consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend opposite, and, although I quite agree that the concession he has made on Clause 12 is one which is most welcome, that really does not meet the point.

§ The CHAIRMAN
With regard to the next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West Newington (Mr. Gilbert), we settled that question, I think, on Clause 5.

§ Mr. GILBERT
Would it be in order for me to move it in an amended form, leaving out the words referring to age, so that the Amendment would then read, "and it shall be his further duty to compile a list after inquiry made at each house in his area of all soldiers, sailors, and other persons entitled to claim to be registered by virtue of Section 5 of this Act," and then leave out the words "who are at the time of the making of the register not less than eighteen years of age," and then the Amendment would go on: "and he shall set against the names of such persons their respective ranks, regiment, or ship, as the case may be, home address, and former occupation," leaving out the rest of the words.

§ The CHAIRMAN
With regard to the duty of compiling a list, we had a long discussion on that point on Clause 5, and it was understood that the military authorities were going to take the necessary steps. The Government made a statement, on that, point which the hon. Member will recollect.

§ Mr. GILBERT
But this is a question of the registration officer compiling a list of the names, and the rank, regiment or ship' to which a man belongs. The point of this Amendment is that we want to get on the list of the registration officer the rank, regiment, or ship and former occupation, in order that that may be dealt with by the Reconstruction Committee.

§ The CHAIRMAN
You cannot introduce Reconstruction into a Franchise Bill, or you might raise a number of social reforms.

Mr. CHANCELLOR
On a point of Order. I understand that the names are to be given by the naval and military authorities to the local authorities, but is there anything to prevent the local authorities from making a house to house canvass to-check the list sent in by the naval and military authorities?

§ The CHAIRMAN
That is not a point of Order. I think there is a place in the Schedule where you can properly raise that question, especially in connection with the absent voter.

§ Colonel SANDERS
Is the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Devizes Mr. Peto) out of order?

§ The CHAIRMAN
That is the same question, "to place the names of all persons registered as Parliamentary electors, under the provisions of Section five of this Act, upon the list of absent voters." In one respect it is settled in Clause 5, and in the other respect it is dealt with in-Schedule 1. I think that is clear.

§ Mr. TURTON
I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "officer" ["If a registration officer refuses"], to insert the words "overseer, or assistant-overseer."
Very properly, the Bill provides that the registration officer shall be liable to be fined in the event of his not doing his duty, but the Bill also provides that, in the event of the registration officer not preparing the list of voters, he may require the overseer or assistant-overseer to prepare the list for him, and to furnish 447 all necessary information. There is no provision at all in the Bill that if the overseer or assistant-overseer fails to carry out the requirement or give the information asked for by the registration officer he can be compelled to do so. I think it is advisable that there should be a provision to compel the overseer or assistant-overseer to perform his duties. Of course, I do not for a moment suggest a high penalty, but I do submit it would be wise to have a provision that the overseer or assistant-overseer can be compelled to carry out his duties.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher)
This Clause is designed to compel the registration officer to carry out the duties conferred upon him by the Act, and if he refuses, neglects, or fails to perform any of those duties he is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100. The responsibility referred to falls very properly upon the registration officer, and I do not think it is necessary to impose fines on any of those whom he is called upon to employ. After all, it is for him to carry out his duties. My hon. Friend says that the overseer or assistant-overseer may refuse to provide the registration officer with the information which he ought to give him. I can hardly imagine that such cases would arise, but I think there would be other ways of dealing with a recalcitrant overseer or assistant overseer if he did anything of that kind.

§ Colonel SANDERS
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the present position of the overseer is, because this Bill does not alter their duties very much? I am at a loss to understand whether he is liable to penalties if he neglects his duty. Perhaps my right hon. Friend can enlighten me.

§ Mr. TURTON
I only desire to carry out what the revising barrister can do now, which is to fine an overseer if he fails to do his duty, and I suggest that a Court of Summary Jurisdiction should have the same power which previously rested with the revising barrister. There is no earthly power to make an overseer give information to a registration officer under this or any other Act. I do not suggest the registration officer should be in the same position as the revising barrister and be entitled to impose fines, but 448 I do say that it would be impossible to get this information from the overseer unless there were some power to bring him to book in the event of his refusal.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I am not going to suggest what penalties should be imposed upon the overseer. I do not remember off-hand what is the actual position, certainly in the country, of an overseer. So far as I remember in my county, he is generally a farmer, and he has an assistant overseer, who is paid, and is an official. I forget whether the duties are obligatory or not, but if he gets any pay it is very small, and he is not a regular official. Unless something of this sort is put in, I do not know what penalty can be imposed.

§ Mr. FISHER
The overseers will be paid by the registration officer, as part of the expenses of registration, a sum of money which will be of value to them, and that being the case, they will be anxious to discharge their duties and retain their position. You will have the hold you have over any man to whom you pay money. If my hon. Friend is anxious on this subject, I will give the point further consideration.

§ Mr. TURTON
I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment

§ Colonel SANDERS
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "refuses" ["If a registration officer refuses"] to insert the words "or wilfully."
I move this Amendment on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Nield). I think it makes the meaning of the Clause a little clearer. By a subsequent Amendment it is proposed to leave out the words "or fails without reasonable cause." It seems to me that it is a less cumbersome expression, and quite effective for the purpose of the Bill.

§ Mr. FISHER
I do not think the word "wilfully" is at all necessary, and it will be much better to leave the proposal as it is. If the officer fails to perform his duty he is liable to the penalties imposed by the Bill.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I am glad to say that I agree with my right hon. Friend on this point.

§ Colonel SANDERS
I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (2). I have always objected very strongly to taking away from this House the power of knowing what it is doing and giving to the Government by Order in Council powers to make regulations without the knowledge and approval of this House. In an important Bill of this kind I think the House ought to know what it is doing, and we ought not to give power to the Government without the authority of this House to amend the Bill as it leaves this House. May I ask hon. Members for a moment to look at the first Schedule of this Bill. It begins on page 22, and there are seven-and-a-half pages full of all sorts of rules which, apparently, if the Schedule is passed in its present form, will have received the approval of this House, and now we are going to say that His Majesty may, by Order in Council, alter the rules contained in the first Schedule to this Act for the purpose of carrying this Act into full effect. If the Government can alter the rules and make other rules, why put them into the Schedule at all? I hope my right hon. Friend will either consent to accept my Amendment to leave out this particular Sub-section or that he will so modify the Section that these powers will be done away with. Some power may be necessary to deal with small matters, but that power should be limited. I am sorry the committee is so empty, but I hope those hon. Members who are here will support me in this matter, because it does go to the root of the power and authority of this House, which is or ought to be the predominant factor. The Government come down and increasingly ask us to pass Bills which contain provisions either that the Government by Order in Council or some particular Department may make alterations in the very Bill of which the House has approved. Sometimes it says that those alterations must lie on the Table, but no one knows that they are there, and when they are seen, and there is any objection to them, they can only be discussed after eleven o'clock when Members are tired and it is difficult to get a full attendance. This seems to me to be a most serious question, and I trust my right hon. Friend will either accept this Amendment or give me a pledge that he will so alter this proposal as to whittle it down and leave these powers quite different to what they are now

§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL
I should like to say that the hon. Baronet who has just spoken is always a very watchful guardian of Bills in this House. I think the Subsection which he has referred to has provided ground for some criticism. I am not sure that this proposal follows precedents on all points. It contains three provisions. The first is that His Majesty may by Order in Council prescribe the forms to be used for registration purposes and any fees to be taken in connection therewith. I do not think any objection can be taken to that and it is a necessary provision. It also contains this provision which seems to me to be unusual. It enables an Order in Council to be made altering the rules contained in the First Schedule of this Act for the purpose of carrying this Act into full effect. That seems to me a somewhat odd power to confer by Order in Council. The First Schedule contains a very large number of detail matters, and it may be that in course of time some modification might be necessary in them, and it would be unfortunate to require the Government of the day always to come to Parliament for a fresh Act of Parliament on some minute point of detail. I do not know whether it would be possible to consider, between now and the Report stage, this point instead of giving a perfectly general power to undo to-morrow what the House of Commons may have decided today. The third portion of this Sub-section is also very unusual, for it enables an Order in Council to be made for carrying into effect any Act for the time being in force amending or affecting this Act. That is to say, if, ten years' hence, some amending Bill is introduced and passed dealing with any matter, franchise, or registration, then the Parliament of that day will find, unless it repeals this provision, that we have enacted that at that time the Government of the day may make Orders in Council applying the provisions of that new Act. I do not know whether that is what is intended, and I await an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. If that is so, I certainly consider that it requires a considerable defence before Parliament should provide that Orders in Council may be made applying to any future Act which at some subsequent date may be passed into law

§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE
I would like to support the suggestion which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland, and I ask the Government to take out this Sub-section. The part of the Sub-section which reads, or for carrying into effect any Act for the time being in force amending or affecting this Act is a very large provision, and far too large to pass in a small Committee like we have at the present moment. It gives power to make Orders in Council to carry into effect any Act for the time being affecting this present Act, and I do not know of a precedent for anything of this kind. These powers are being given in this Act for the first time, and I suggest that the Government should have time to reflect upon the matter and consider this point again when we come to the Report stage, in order to see if these words cannot be omitted altogether. I do not see that the omission of this Sub-section makes any difference to the Bill or the Clause, and as it stands the Clause is taking very much greater powers than are necessary. For these reasons I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this point.

§ Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS
I regard with some apprehension a Clause in the Bill enabling rules to be altered by an Order in Council, which is an entirely new procedure. One can see that rules which are set out in the Schedule may require alteration, but one would suppose that the best and most sensible body to alter the rules would be those who have had some experience of the working of the Act. In the High Courts rules are altered by committees having experience of the way in which the rules have operated, and they take into account the changing necessities of the Act. I should have thought that in an Act of this importance it might have been possible to establish rule committees consisting, perhaps, of some of the principal registration officers, County Court judges, who have had practical experience of the rules, and possibly the Home Secretary or someone representing the Home Office. The general power which is given, by this Act is unusual, and I do not think in practice it will work.
I confess I quite agree with what fell from the late Home Secretary, who pointed out that it is entirely unusual that you should apply some future Act of Parliament to an existing Act by an Order in Council. The right way to do it, I should 452 have thought, would be, if you are going to introduce some Act of Parliament in the future which affects the existing Act you are passing, that you should so confine it in the future Act of Parliament. You have only to say that an Act of a certain date shall be altered, and then the House could consider the alteration; but to give power in a general Order in Council to apply a new Act of Parliament to a new one seems to me to be quite a startling procedure. For these reasons I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether this general power given by Order in Council is not too wide, and whether, if the rules are altered, they should not be altered by some independent authority.

§ Colonel SANDERS
I do not agree with my right hon. Friend in regard to omitting the whole of this Sub-section.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I only put this Amendment down in its present form in order to raise a discussion, and I should be quite willing to leave any words in which may be necessary.

§ Colonel SANDERS
My right hon. Friend said that his real objection was to the latter part of the Sub-section.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
The two latter parts.

§ Colonel SANDERS
The first part of the Sub-section enables His Majesty, by Order in Council, to alter the rules contained in the First Schedule of this Act. Those rules are some of the most important parts of the whole Bill, and they are likely to be even more important when we come to the Schedule. We have been told that the Schedule is the place where the machinery by which the soldiers and sailors will be enabled to vote will be put in. What decision the House will come to as to the means by which those sailors and soldiers are to vote, of course, I do not know. Whatever it is, I think they should vote in the way this House lays down, and not in the way the Government may lay down at some subsequent period by Order in Council. If the soldiers' and sailors' vote depends entirely upon this Schedule, it will be at the option of some pacifist Government at some future time to out that vote out altogether by Order in Council. The hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) does not agree with me, but if he will look at the Bill he will find that it is perfectly clear. I do not know what the precedents are on this subject, but whatever they may be we ought 453 not on such an important matter to leave the whole future of this voting of soldiers and sailors to be determined by Order in Council.

§ Mr. FISHER
I have sometimes in other days joined with my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) in trying to protect the House from the ever-growing encroachments of Orders in Council on Acts of Parliament, and I therefore have a good deal of sympathy with him when he seems to discover here a very large power by Order in Council to override an Act of Parliament. The precedent of the Local Government Act of 1888, for which this has been drawn, has certainly worked very well, and Orders in Council under that Act have been made quite frequently affecting registration law. Section 76, Sub-section (7) of that Act reads:
"It shall be lawful for Her Majesty the Queen, by Order in Council, from time to time to alter the instructions, precepts, notices, and forms under the Registration of Electors Acts, in such manner as appears to Her Majesty necessary for carrying into effect this Act and the County Electors Act, 1888, and any other Act for the time being in force amending or affecting the Acts mentioned in this Sub-section."
Here is a very valuable precedent. I myself am not at all anxious to extend the powers of Orders in Council—we are in danger sometimes of having Acts of Parliament overriden by Orders in Council—but of all cases this, I think, is one where you must give power to any Government to put the Act into force by Order in Council. The rules in the First Schedule, of course, relate to procedure, and they must undergo alteration from time to time as experience shows them to be good or bad here or there, or to have this or that effect. It might well be that Parliament might not be sitting at the time, or if Parliament were sitting, it might not be possible to bring in an amending Act; and just at the most important time of the compilation of the register, as regards the dates laid down for making claims or making objections, the whole of the machinery might really prove by actual experience to be ineffective. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel) at all events seems to have it in mind that for the first year or two it will be very necessary to have some considerable 454 power residing in the Government by which they may alter these rules by Order in Council. That is almost as far as I should myself go; but, after all, if we have this power for the first year or two the House of Commons will have an opportunity of reconsidering the whole position as regards the rules. It will be perfectly possible when we are amending this Act—I do not doubt that after experience we shall have to amend it in some respects—to see how far these rules should be made permanent in a Schedule in an Act of Parliament, or how far you should extend or limit the power of any Government to alter them by Order ii Council.
It is necessary that the Government which brings the Act into force should have very large powers by Order in Council to alter them, because they may find almost at once that some of then are not the best and most workable rules by which to bring the Act into force. That is the reason we are taking these large powers. There will, however, be another opportunity of considering this question when we come to the rules themselves, and it may be, when we come to discuss the First Schedule, that we may come to the conclusion that the powers we are seeking in this Clause are toe wide. It will then be perfectly possible for the House to express its opinion and for us to go back on Report and to water down and dilute to a certain extent the powers that we now take under Clause 11. That is the explanation which I have to give to the House, and I hope that explanation will prove satisfactory to both of my hon. Friends.

§ Mr. H. SAMUEL
I am not sure that my hon. Friend will find the explanation satisfactory. I do not think a convenient opportunity of considering this whole matter will really arise on the First Schedule, because there we shall be considering a number of details on matters which cover many pages, and it will not be possible to discuss the question of principle underlying the whole subject. If the provisions in the First Schedule may soon need recasting by the Government in the light of experience, then they ought not to have been put into a Schedule at all, and ought not to have statutory validity. They ought to have been put in the form of a draft Order in Council and laid before the House to show what was intended.

§ Mr. FISHER
We desired to give the House the fullest possible information about the rules, and that was why we put them in the Schedule. It is quite true that they might have been put in an Order in Council, but it was because we desired to acquaint the House with the kind of rules we proposed that we put them into the Schedule.

§ Mr. H. SAMUEL
I am not saying that they ought not to be brought before the House of Commons—they certainly ought—but the Government had two alternatives. One was to put them in the Schedule of the Act, in which case they have statutory validity, but they ought not at the same time to take power the moment the House has passed the Schedule to alter it by Order in Council. The other alternative was to lay them before the House in the form of a draft Order in Council so that the House might have cognisance of them, and might alter them if necessary. Such an Order in Council Slight be allowed by another Order in Council. Now that the course of putting the rules into the Schedule of the Bill has been adopted and it may be found necessary later on to alter them in some particulars whilst it may not be possible, necessary, or desirable to trouble Parliament with another Bill dealing with some quite minute point, I would suggest that it should be provided that they should be altered by Order in Council, but that we should put into the Bill a provision that such Order in Council should be laid before Parliament and in the event of either House passing an Address praying for an alteration in the Order in Council that such alteration should be made. That is the usual formula which appears in a very large number of Statutes. In that way we should have the rules before us in the Schedule, and it would still be possible by a simple and expeditious process to amend them, if amendment were necessary, whilst at the same time the anomaly would not be perpetrated of Parliament legislating one day and giving power to the Government to alter that legislation the next day without itself having a constitutional opportunity of checking the action of the Government. My right hon. Friend did not really give a satisfactory answer to the objection raised to the third portion of this particular Sub-section which gives power to make an Order in Council to
"alter the rules contained in the First Schedule to this Act for the purpose of 456 carrying this Act into full effect or for carrying into effect any Act for the time being in force amending or affecting this Act."
A precedent need not necessarily be a conclusive argument, and, indeed, the quoting of that precedent of the Local Government Act of 1888 seems to me to illustrate the very danger of this process, because I do not think there is a single member of this Committee who was aware of, or had present in his mind, that provision in the Act of 1888. Yet in that Act all that we are doing in this Bill, so far as it relates to local government elections, can be effected by Order in Council. That Act provides that an Order in Council may be made applying any future Act dealing with local government. This Act deals with local government elections, and an Order in Council may be made under the Act of 1888 dealing with any of the provisions which we are now passing, so far as they relate to local government. That shows how dangerous the powers may be so far as they extend, not to the legislation under discussion, but to any legislation which may be passed later. I would therefore suggest to the Government that these last words, or for carrying into effect any Act for the time being in force amending or affecting this Act, are dangerous and unnecessary, and that if at any future time any Orders in Council are necessary to carry into effect the provisions of any future Act, the powers of that Order in Council should be embodied in the Act concerned, and not in this Act.

§ Colonel Sir C. SEELY
I hope the Government are really not too modest. This question of registration is one which is quite well known, and one with which we have all been concerned for a long time. I cannot think this long list of rules will require any alteration, but if any alteration is required it will probably be of so small a character as not to give any difficulty in getting it through this House. The precedent which the right hon. Gentleman gave was a precedent, as I understood it, applying to local government elections only. It is not wise for us to regard a precedent which deals with local government elections and affairs only as being a proper precedent to apply to the far more serious question of Parliamentary 457 elections. In the case of local government elections and electors there could be no allegation of any political bias on the part of the Government of the day. Nobody can say that any rules they make as to those affairs are based upon anything but a desire to make the rules more efficacious. But in the case of Parliamentary elections there is undoubtedly a risk that anything that is done by the Government might be subjected to criticism from the point of view of political bias. Therefore, it is not desirable to give to any Government the power of altering rules made with regard to Parliamentary elections in such a simple, plain, and autocratic manner as is given by means of Orders in Council. Of course, if the Government think that they have not drawn up the rules sufficiently accurately and that it may be necessary for them to alter them at once, we can deal with the matter in the manner suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. E. Samuel) and simply put in a paragraph providing that the Orders in Council should be laid on the Table of the House. I would, however, suggest to the Home Secretary that he is unduly modest and nervous about his own rules and that it would be a far more dignified course for the Committee to adopt to leave out the whole of this Subsection, except the provision which is absolutely necessary, namely, that
"His Majesty may by Order in Council prescribe the forms to be used for registration purposes and any fees to be taken in connection therewith,"
because those matters are not dealt with in the Schedule and must be dealt with by Order in Council. The Government should trust their own skilled draftsmen. As regards the rules they have drawn up, normally they are very good indeed, and I do not believe for one moment that they will require amendment. My own feeling is that this Sub-section has been put in almost entirely owing to the bad habit into which we have allowed the draftsmen of the House to get whenever they bring in a Bill—namely, to put in a provision enabling the Government to alter it immediately afterwards. That has two evil effects. It is bad for the Government, and is not consonant with the dignity of the House. It has the serious effect of making people much less careful as to the Acts of Parliament they pass and their actual wording, which, in itself, is not a 458 good thing, and does not lead to harmonious working. I strongly press the Government to consider whether it would not be much better to leave out these words. If after we have considered the rules and any alterations the Committee may make in them, the Government think that they have been so upset and damaged by the Committee that it will be necessary for them to take power to put straight the messes the Committee has committed, they may be able to persuade us on Report to give them that power.

§ Sir G. CAVE
I feel very grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sir C. Seely) for the compliment he paid to the Government and to the Government draftsmen. He seems to think that the rides in the Schedule are so exceedingly well drafted that it is most unlikely that in the course of a few years they will be found deficient. That is quite contrary to experience. These rules go into great detail, and deal with a number of matters. It is very likely, indeed—at all events, it is possible—that after a few months' or a years' time you may find some defects in them, possibly quite a small matter of some date or time, which would necessitate a change. Therefore it would be prudent to have in some part of the provisions for meeting defects of that kind. We might have taken one of three courses. We might, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. H. Samuel) says, have left the rules out of the Bill altogether and simply taken power in the Bill to make rules by Order in Council. We did not take that course. It might have saved the Committee and us a good deal of trouble. We did not do so because we thought that some of these matters are new and all of them are, at any rate, important, and that the House would like to see the kind of Regulations we proposed to make, which involve, in some cases, dealing with old Regulations and in others with Acts of Parliament. We therefore thought it right to put them into the Schedule. The second course would have been to put them in and make them unchangeable. There is much risk in that. The third course was to put them into the Schedule and give the Government power to change them from time to time. The last, I think, is the right course. If the general view is that after these rides are made they should not be altered by Order in Council only but that there should be power in Parliament 459 to object to any changes, I recognise, of course, the force of that observation. I will certainly look into it, in the hope of meeting that view and of putting down an Amendment on Report to give effect to the suggestion. I ought to add this caution: The Amendment ought to take such a form that the rules will be valid until an Address is presented against them. They ought not to be made conditional upon the assent of Parliament. They ought to take effect at once, subject to the possibility of some objection being taken by an Address from either House. If that is accepted, that is the course I should like to pursue. I should like to add about the final words, which are taken as my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board said, from another Act of Parliament, that they are words which give power by these rules to determine the procedure, not only for the purpose of carrying this Bill into effect, but of carrying into effect any Act for the time being in force amending or affecting this Act. Those words were taken from an existing Statute. The purpose of them is this: This Bill may be amended by a future Statute. Then you will have as the statutory law governing the matter the two Acts together, and any rules which you want after that will give effect to the two Acts together. It is not necessary or desirable to put into an amending Act a fresh power to make rules. You take power in the principal Act to amend rules, both under the principal Act and under the amending Act. It is the usual practice. We should be able to deal with any defects. I would rather keep the words in the Bill as they stand, because they are in accordance with Parliamentary practice.

§ Sir C. HOBHOUSE
The Committee is very much indebted to the Home Secretary for the announcement he has made. The only point that brings me to my feet is that while I agree with practically everything he has said I am not quite sure that I am in agreement with the last part of his remarks. I do not see the difficulty of putting into any future Bill a power to make rules carrying that future Bill into effect. I gather that on that point I have the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel) and the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). I would ask the Home Secretary, 460 before he finally comes to a decision on this point, to consider whether it would not be just as easy for the Government to limit the third condition dealing with any future Act to dealing with any rules under this Bill and leaving any future Bill to take care of itself. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board quoted an admirable precedent in which there is much force. I suggest the right hon. Gentleman should make a further concession in addition to that he has announced. It would be found so satisfactory and conciliatory that I hope the right hon. Baronet will withdraw his Amendment.

§ Sir G. CAVE
May I think those last works over before Report?

§ Sir F. BANBURY
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board says we have both fought upon this point together before when we were on the same side. I had a doubt in my own mind as to whether there was a precedent. It appears there is. I remember perfectly what the late Sir Charles Dilke said when a precedent which was a bad one was brought up. He said it was not wise to go upon a bad precedent, and if you have a bad precedent, instead of acting upon it, you should take care that you did not, because if a precedent was a bad one it should not be operative in the future. I agree that is the proper course to pursue. I have already said, when the Home Secretary was out of the Committee, that although I put down the Amendment to leave out the whole of the Sub-section I did not wish to leave out the first two lines. I only moved the Amendment in its present form in order to obtain a discussion upon the whole of the Subsection instead of having a separate discussion upon its different parts. I should prefer if at the present moment we left out all the words after the word "therewith." The Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board suggested that we should leave all the words in and that we might amend the Schedule. That is impossible because we shall have passed this then. I do not like to put off all these things until the Report stage. Nor do I like very much the plan of laying the Order in Council upon the Table. Very few people see such Orders in Council and it is very difficult to get anybody to attend to them. However, it does, to a certain extent, preserve the control of Parliament. The Parliamentary 461 Secretary to the Local Government Board said he thought that in the next year or two it might be necessary to alter these rules and I gathered that he was prepared to accept an Amendment which would limit such an Amendment to the next year or two.

§ Mr. FISHER
I did not suggest that. I thought it was most necessary to give the Government power by Order in Council to alter the rules while those rules were in an experimental stage, but that after the registration officers and voters have had experience of them during one or two years probably things would settle down and the rules would become almost common form.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
You mean that they would not require alteration, not that they should not be altered?

§ Mr. FISHER
That is so.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I do not like the proposal to lay the Orders in Council on the Table, but I am willing to accede to it. Of course, it would be done in the usual way because there are rules which are so contrived that they are of no use at all. I understand it will be provided that they shall be laid upon the Table of the House, and, if not objected to within thirty days during the time that the House is sitting, they shall continue in force. I do not object to their being in force during the thirty days, provided the House is sitting and there is power to deal with them. I remember on one occasion the present Lord Stuart Wortley telling me that he was going to raise a matter, and I said I thought he was not, and he did not. We do not want anything of that kind, and I am quite sure the Home Secretary does not mean that. I will, however, consent if the right hon. Gentleman will agree to leave out the words
"and alter the rules contained in the First Schedule to this Act for the purpose of carrying this Act into full effect or for carrying into effect any Act for the time being in force amending or affecting this Act."
Those words are unnecessary. As the right hon. Gentleman himself said, it is enacting now that we shall do something ten or twenty years hence in regard to another Act. The disadvantage of that has been shown by the fact that the Act of 1888, without anyone in the House 462 knowing it, does apply to the local government part of this Bill. I should like to point out this fact: I have noticed it influences them a good deal in the decisions to which they come. There has not been a single Member who has spoken upon this Amendment who has not endorsed it and thought an alteration should be made. Not a single Member on either side has thought these words were right. I therefore propose to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment on the understanding that the Home Secretary has just given us and then to move to leave out the words "or for carrying into effect any Act for the time being in force amending or affecting this Act."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The Amendment the right hon. Baronet mentions is already on the Paper in the name of another Member.

§ Mr. WATT
I beg to move to leave out the words "and any fees to be taken in connection therewith."
The necessity for this Amendment is largely removed by the concession made by the Home Secretary, namely that Orders in Council shall be placed before the House for a certain number of days and the House will have an opportunity of discussing them if necessary. But I desire to move this in order that the Home Secretary may tell us what class of fees are referred to and on what occasions they will be charged. I think the Committee realises that the power to impose charges on the people of the country ought not to be conferred by Order in Council,' and that is an extra argument for laying the Orders in Council on the Table for discussion if necessary.

§ Sir G. CAVE
In such matters as these fees will be charged for a copy of the register or of part of the register for a form of claim or for a form of objection. They are small matters, but it is not desirable that discretion should be allowed locally. It is better to lay them down for the whole country, so that the amount to be charged may be reasonable. It is quite usual to have a scale of fees settled by some authority or other, and we propose to put the fees in the Regulations which are to be made.

§ Mr. RENDALL
Does that mean that if an ordinary person wants to make a claim he has to pay a fee?

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I beg to move to leave out the words "or for carrying into effect any Act for the time being in force amending or affecting this Act."
We do not think it is right that we should legislate now for some Act which may come into force ten or twenty years hence. These words provide that an Order in Council may be put into effect for the purpose of carrying out an Act which may be passed by a future Parliament, called into being by a different electorate, and perhaps not elected for many years to come.

§ Sir G. CAVE
I do not resist this Amendment from obstinacy at all, but as a matter of business convenience. Take the point I made just now. Suppose you had an Act amending this Act in one respect—for instance, altering the period of qualification from six months to three. You would not put in that amending Act a fresh provision for making rules and all the rest of it. You would merely alter the six to three. Then you would get a sort of compound Act composed of the present Bill and the new amending Act, and you want to make your rules so as to give effect to the two together. That is why we have in this Bill, as in other Statutes, the power to make rules for giving effect not only to the principal Act, but to any amending Act. It is common-sense, and I see no reason whatever why the words should not be allowed to stand.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I cannot quite see now why, when this new Act is introduced, power should not be taken in it to amend the Schedule. You are going to have a Bill and discuss it in Parliament. What does it matter whether there is another Clause in it or not? I am very sorry the Home Secretary will not accept this Amendment, especially as it has been supported by every Member who has spoken. It really looks as if any Amendment moved from his own side of the House is always to be refused. Last night an Amendment was accepted in the dinner hour, and I find that one Member was strongly against it, and another objected to it being taken at that time. But it was accepted because five or six Members spoke in favour of it. This afternoon, when every Member who has spoken has been in favour of making the alteration, the Home Secretary refuses it.

§ Colonel GREIG
I have not spoken because I thought it would only lengthen the discussion. I agree entirely with the 464 position taken up by the Home Secretary. A little experience in drafting Acts of Parliament has led me to believe that he has taken the correct view. What would happen when a small point has to be amended in a big Statute? Just what the Home Secretary says. The new Statute would do it in this way: The amending Act would probably say, "this Act and the former Act shall be read together as one Act." No draughtsman would ever think of putting into that Act a fresh power of making or adjusting Orders in Council. It would never occur to him to do it, because if the new Act has to be read with the old Act any experienced draughtsman would think that is all that is wanted. It would be perfectly correct to do it in that way. It is the usual way to carry on the earlier power and issue Orders in Council to amend the Regulations from time to time. Hon. Members do not seem to have realised that these Orders in Council are not to be made to alter the rule in the First Schedule simply. There are other words there which control the whole of it for the purpose of carrying this Act into effect. I am not at all sure that if an Order in Council were issued which did not carry the Act into effect on a fair construction of the whole Statute, you could not get a prohibition to restrain the operation of the Order in Council. I imagine there is some power in the High Court to restrain the operation of an Order in Council which is obviously in contravention of the effect of the Act. I think the Home Secretary is perfectly correct.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
We were not dealing with the First Schedule for the purpose of carrying the Act into full effect. We are dealing with the question whether we shall have something in this Act with regard to another Act which is not in force, and we do not know whether it will ever be in force. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says the proper way for the professional draughtsman is to say that this particular Act is to be read with some other Act. That is legislation by reference, which the whole House for several years past has deprecated. No doubt it is a very good thing from the point of the draughtsman, but it is not a good thing from the point of view of the House, We do not want to have to look up all sorts of Acts to find out what is in them and what is not. Far and away the simpler and better plan, if not for the Government for Members generally, is to 465 deal with all the details of the Bill in the Bill itself and not in a way which necessitates the spending of hours and days looking up previous Statutes.

§ Colonel GREIG
If the right hon. Baronet is correct, you would have to repeat the whole of the original Statute in the amending Statute.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Why not?

§ Mr. MACMASTER
With respect to my right hon. Friend, this is not legislation by reference. Legislation by reference contemplates a case in which you refer in an existing Statute to some previous Statute. In this case we have recognised already that by Order in Council the rules may be changed to carry this Act into effect, and all that is proposed here is that if this Act should be amended in future there should be power to make an Order in Council to carry into effect the amending Act.