§ (1) An appeal shall lie to the County Court, as defined by rules of Court, from any decision of the registration officer on any point of law material to his action in refusing to place or placing any name on the register or in any part of the register, or refusing to place or placing any mark against any name in the register, and rules of Court shall be made for the purpose of determining the procedure on any such appeals and for applying and adapting thereto any enactments relating to County Courts and the procedure therein.
§ (2) There shall be no appeol 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.
§ (3) An appeal shall lie from any decision of the County Court of any such appeal from the registration officer in accordance with rules of the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeal, but no appeal shall lie from the decision of the Court of Appeal.
§ (4) The right of voting of any person whose name is for the time being en the register shall not be prejudiced by any appeal pending under this Section, and 466 any vote given in pursuance of that right shall be as good as if no appeal were pending, and shall not be affected by the subsequent decision of the appeal.
§ (5) Notice shall be sent to the registration officer in manner provided by rules of Court of the decision of the County Court or of the Court of Appeal on any appeal under this Section, and the registration officer shall make such alterations in the electors' lists or register as may be required to give effect to the decision.
§ (6) On any appeal under this Section the registration officer shall be deemed to be a party to the proceedings.
§ (7) If the Lord Chancellor is satisfied on the representation of the judge of any County Court that the judge is unable, owing to the necessity of dealing with appeals under this Act, to transact the business of the Court with proper dispatch, the Lord Chancellor may appoint a barrister of at least seven years' standing to act as assistant judge for such time as the Lord Chancellor may direct, and subject to any conditions which he may impose.
§ Any assistant judge so appointed shall have' ail the powers and privileges and may perform any of the duties of the judge, whether under this Act or otherwise, to whom he has been appointed assistant.
§ An assistant judge shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament such remuneration and travelling allowances as may be allowed by the Treasury.
§ In the application of this provision to a County Court district the whole of which is within the Duchy of Lancaster, the Chancellor of the Duchy shall be substituted for the Lord Chancellor.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI have an Amendment to substitute "revising barrister" for "County Court."
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. and learned Gentleman was not here when we had a discussion on a previous Clause on an Amendment moved by the; right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) on the understanding that we disposed of it at that stage.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI understood that that discussion was upon the question of a barrister revising the list of voters. This is a question of appeal. The question is who is to be the appeal tribunal, 467 whether it is to be a County Court or a different tribunal. The other question was who should be responsible for the revision of the lists. It had nothing to do with questions of law or of fact.
§ The CHAIRMANI actually drew attention to the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment on this Clause, as the better place of raising the question. The Committee took the view that it was better to raise it at the point at which the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Brigadier-General Croft) had an Amendment, and I put the point clearly before the Committee that the decision disposed of the question of the revising barrister altogether.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI had that Amendment down as well.
§ The CHAIRMANI know, but I cannot allow it a second time.
§ Colonel SANDERSAre not these two different questions? The question that was raised on Clause 11 was whether the revising barrister should take the place of what I may call the Court of First Instance, instead of the registration officer. The question which my hon. and learned Friend wants to raise is whether the revising barrister should take the place of the County Court as a Court of appeal. Surely these are quite different questions? The first question could only be raised on Clause 11, and the second question could only be raised on Clause 12.
§ Sir F. BANBURYMy object in moving the Amendment was, and I said it, several times, that the registration officer should be checked. I said, in reply to the hon. Member for Newington, that I did not want to set up a revising barrister's Court, but that my object was to provide some power of revision by a revising officer, and that we should decide later on who that revising officer should be. It did not necessarily follow that he should be a revising barrister. If the hon. and learned Member wants to continue that discussion he would be out of order, but if he wants to propose as an Amendment that, instead of the County Court being the Court of appeal, a revising barrister should perform that function. I submit that that would be in order.
§ Mr. NIELDI should like to call attention to the fact that these are wholly different conditions. You are now, by your ruling, Mr. Whitley, preventing an Amendment being moved upon which it would be relevant to inform you of the condition of business in the County Courts and the impossibility of the County Court undertaking this work. This is a totally different function from that which was proposed in Clause 11. In that case, we were saying that the revising barrister could be readily accessible in the way that he has hitherto been to revise questions of fact or questions of law. That is one thing, but to have an appeal from the action of the registration officer, which we all hope would be a final appeal, is a very different thing, and I do urge you to consider whether or not the ultimate tribunal of appeal should not be some person other than a permanent member of the judicial staff, who, as a rule, is hopelessly overworked at the present time. I do ask you to allow the Amendment to be moved.
§ Mr. GOLDSTONEWe determined the question of the revising barrister's Court at an earlier stage. Surely if revising barristers are now introduced into this Bill by way of amendment it inferentially carries with it the right to set up a revising barrister's Court. That would be to allow a repetition of something which we have already determined.
§ The CHAIRMANIt is a pity the hon. and learned Gentlemen who have spoken were not here at the time when this matter was decided. I distinctly drew attention to this Amendment on Clause 12 and I stated that my preference was for the matter being raised there and it was only in deference to the views expressed by the Committee that I consented to the other Amendment being discussed on Clause 11, clearly stating that it would dispose of the question. Therefore, if I permit debate on the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment now it must be very limited because we had a long debate on the question on Clause 11 and came to a decision upon it.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI distinctly remember that you said exactly what you have just stated, but I may point out that you asked for a definite official to be put in, and the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) said he 469 understood the hon. and learned Gentler man (Mr. Rawlinson) had got an Amendment lower down on the Paper raising the question of the revising officer, and he thought it was in connection with Clause 11 and suggested that revising barrister should be put in. I did not put in revising barrister, I put in revising officer. The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs was wrong, because it now turns out that my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment did not apply to Clause 11 in the sense that I moved the Amendment to that Clause, but to Clause 12 in a totally different sense, that is, whether the County Court which did not come into my Amendment at all should be the Court of appeal or some other Court.
§ Sir G. CAVEPerhaps it may assist if I state how the matter occurs to me. We are all agreed in regard to what you said and the action you took, but it is true that as the discussion went on it limited itself to the point whether in the preliminary act of framing the register the registration officer should be checked by someone before the register was completed. This is a different point, because it arises when the register is complete, the point being whether the appeal, so far as the registration is concerned, should be to the County Court or elsewhere. I am not in the least unwilling to meet the point in discussion and I do not press you not to put this Amendment to the Committee.
§ The CHAIRMANIf I allow this Amendment I must ask the Committee not to take advantage of it in view of what was done on the previous Clause.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI beg to move, in Sub-section (I), to leave out the words "the County Court, as defined by rules of Court," and to insert instead thereof the words "a revising barrister."
I had an Amendment to the previous Clause which was dealt with. That suggestion, which failed, was that there should be a revision Court and that the duty under the existing state of affairs should continue and that there should be a revising barrister responsible for the list and not the registration officer set up by this Bill. That has been disposed of, and I will not refer to it except to explain that it is not the Amendment I am moving now. Assuming that the registration officer is the sole person responsible for the revision of the list, there is by the 470 Bill an appeal on certain points of law. It is possible that in addition to that there B may be an appeal on certain points of fact. I do not know whether the Government I have definitely pledged themselves to that. I have an Amendment on the point lower? down on the Paper, and it may be that j the Government have indicated they will s consider it favourably. As the Bill stands now, apart from any Government promise, there is to be an appeal on points of law to a tribunal—the County Court My Amendment is that there should be an appeal to a revising barrister. The reasons for that are twofold. First of all, the revising barrister is accustomed to deal with points of law in connection with the electoral lists. He has been accustomed to deal with them, and has had considerable experience in that way. Moreover, he is a person quite independent of the county in which the revision takes place; I he is a person who comes down from London, who does not live in the district, and practically has nothing to do with the district, and who comes down to deal with the particular points which may arise. It is suggested that the County Court should have the decision upon these matters. In my younger days I was very largely in the County Courts. Whatever our general view of the County Courts may be, hon. Members will probably agree in this that those Courts have a considerable amount of work to do at the present time. And certainly they have had no practice in this particular branch of law. A County Court judge may have been sitting for twenty, thirty, or forty years, and may never have had to deal with a case affecting electoral law. He has many other important duties to perform. It is proposed to throw this large amount of additional work on to a man who is bound practically to live in the district and who has had very, little experience in dealing with questions of electoral law. That there will be difficulty in many cases in a County Court dealing with these questions of law, and possibly of fact also, is shown by the Bill, because it takes power to appoint additional County Court judges for the purpose. It is far better to allow people who are dong the work at the present time to continue to do it and to deal with these points of law and, if necessary, point of fact, in the branch of law with which they are familiar. I must apologise to the House for not being in my place when the question was discussed on Clause 11. On the whole I am not irregular in my attend- 471 ance, and I took a great deal of trouble to ascertain how matters would stand in regard to this Bill before I made an appointment for to-day. I understood, in answer to a question, that the Finance Bill would be taken and I made arrangements for an appointment at 4 o'clock this afternoon, but I should have put that off if I had known on Saturday. It was not until Monday that I had any idea that this Committee was to sit to-day. I intended no discourtesy to the Committee by not attending in my place to move my Amendment.
§ Sir W. BULLThe whole idea of the Conference was to simplify, as far as possible, the putting of people on the register and the idea was to sweep away the revising barristers Court altogether. The Conference thought that we had so simplified the machinery that there would not be more than two or three cases each year to go for appeal. There will not be all the complicated cases that hitherto had been brought up before the revising barrister. We consider that the whole thing would become very largely automatic after the first two or three registers and that a person could get on the register almost as easily as you get on the rate book, if you are entitled. Upon the whole we felt that the thing would be very simple and that is why we referred points of law to the County Court rather than points of fact. We thought it would save time and machinery if the responsible officials dealt primarily with questions of fact. The reason why the County Court was put in was so that there should be a right of appeal, if necessary, to a higher Court on any important question of fact. The matter was very carefully considered, and I hope that it will not be altered.
§ Mr. GOLDSTONEMy recollection of what occurred at the Speaker's Conference agrees with that of the hon. Member for Hammersmith. If this Amendment is carried revising barristers will practically have to be appointed for all constituencies. If that occurs, and the work falls off, as it certainly will under the simplification which this Bill will effect, then I suppose that the question of compensation will arise. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] Well, I thought it might. This is an excellent Amendment from the point of view of the legal profession. I suppose that there would be an appeal from the barrister's Court, and to whom should that appeal 472 go? It is far better that the comparatively few cases of appeal should go straight to the Court to determine. The hon. Member overlooked the fact that if there is great pressure on the County Court provision is taken to meet it by the power taken to appoint an assistant judge, who will probably be a revising barrister; but the advantage is that the appointment will not be made unless there is a pressure of work. If there is pressure of work, the assistant judge will be appointed only for the time being. As the work steadily declines, then the call will not be made upon the assistant judges to give assistance to the County Court judge. The Bill proposes the right thing, and I hope that it will be adhered to.
§ Mr. NIELDI am much surprised and gratified to hear the childlike faith of hon. Members with regard to the conditions of things under the County Court system. Suppose you have got power to appoint an assistant judge—a very doubtful power—it will have to be exercised all over the country. It is said that that would be a revising barrister under another name; but think of the other branch of the County Court work. I am afraid that hon. Members have had the good fortune to pass their lives away from contact with the County Court. Think what it means in the closely congested London districts. Take the County Court sitting at Clerkenwell, with the registrar and staff worked almost to death. I have known cases adjourned two or three days, after attendance all day in a County Court, waiting for them to come on, owing to the want of time, and it is not confined to the mere question of the judge's list. You have got the registrar and all the officials, and you have got to have special forms and special arrangements in order to deal with these cases which might arise. I wish that I could share the simple faith of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith in thinking that this is all so simple that it is going to work itself all right in a short time.
§ Sir W. BULLI have had a great deal of experience in County Courts.
§ Mr. NIELDMy hon. Friend has generally arranged his County Court business so as to enable him to slip backwards and forwards to his office with no disarrangement of his general practice. Those of us who have had to kick our heels about 473 in the old days in the robing room and elsewhere, waiting hour after hour for these cases to come on, have known what congestion in the County Court means. Remember that the Legislature has from time to time put additional and very substantial work upon the County Court. For instance, all actions for under £100 must be brought into the County Court, unless with the risk of the penalty of having your costs considerably cut down. Then the Workmen's Compensation Act has thrown an enormous burden of work on the County Court. Remember that in country districts the County Court judge only sits once a month, and to ask him to sit oftener is to ask him to disarrange his whole circuit. Hon. Members do not realise the hard life of the County Court judge, the many difficulties which he has to encounter, the many jurisdictions which he has to exercise, and the hundred-and-one Statutes which I cannot call to mind at the moment, but in which duties of various kinds are imposed on the County Court, and in view of this I hope that the Committee will hesitate before putting further business on that already overworked tribunal. I would ask hon. Members to dismiss altogether from their minds anything that may be said about lawyers. Lawyers have done more to make laws properly than any other section of the community, and hasty legislation and imperfect drafting have been brought about very largely by those hon. Members who mean well, but who have always managed to complicate Bills, with the result that in the end they afford a good harvest to the profession.
§ Sir G. CAVEIn order to meet the difficulty which has been referred to by my hon. and learned Friend, provision is made in the Sub-section of this Clause for the appointment of an assistant judge for such time as the Lord Chancellor may direct, who may perform any of the duties of the judge, whether under this Act or otherwise. Needless to say, I cannot accept this Amendment. It is part of the whole scheme of the Bill that the original work shall be done by the registration
§ officer, and that then there shall be an appeal. If the Amendment is carried, I do not know what appeal there would be from the revising barrister, and then we should have to add other provisions.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONOn the question of appeal there would be an appeal at present, I presume, from the County Court to the Court of Appeal, and then to the House of Lords. I do not imagine that that is any consolation to hon. Members. As far as the revising barrister is concerned, it is perfectly well known that the appeal can only be taken when he states a case for consideration. I hope that the Committee will not be influenced by the ingenious remarks by the hon. Member for Hammersmith as to what happened before the Conference. Does he really think that this Bill, now that we have had the advantage of discussing it in this House, will not raise very difficult questions of law indeed? Does he solemnly imagine that the franchise which we have enacted for women is a franchise which is so simple that anybody can say exactly what it makes a person entitled to? I have great respect for the legal knowledge of the hon. Member, but even a humble person like myself might ask him many conundrums as to what we have done here as regards woman suffrage which he would have great difficulty in answering, and which would cause the greatest possible difficulty to a less competent lawyer like myself. This is not one of those questions which go to the bedrock of the Conference. The revising barrister is not, I am sorry to say, a permanent official. He is appointed annually. If this Bill passes, he will not be entitled to compensation. If my Amendment is carried, his successors or he will not be entitled to compensation if for any reason the work ends. Therefore, I press the Committee very strongly to accept this Amendment.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 18.
475| Division No. 63.] | AYES. | [6.59 p.m. |
| Adamson, William | Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs) | Black, Sir Arthur W. |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Barran, Sir Rowland Hunt (Leeds, N.) | Bliss, Joseph |
| Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling | Barton, Sir William | Boland, John Plus |
| Allan, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) | Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W. |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Bockett, Hon, Gervase | Bridgeman, William Clive |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Brookes, Warwick |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Bentham, George Jackson | Brunner, John F. L. |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish | Bryce, J. Annan |
| Barnett, Captain R. W. | Bird, Alfred | Bull, Sir William James |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Roes, G. C. (Carnarvon, Arlon) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Hudson, Walter | Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.) |
| Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George | Jacobean, Thomas Owen | Randall Athelstan |
| Crawley, Rt. Hon. Sir F. (Prestwich) | Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh) | Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham) |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Johnston, Sir Christopher | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Roberts Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Clough, William | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Robinson, Sidney |
| Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Jowett, F. W. | Rowlands, James |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Joyce, Michael | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Kenyon, Barnet | Rutherford, Sir John (Lancs., Darwen) |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives) | King, Joseph | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool W. Derby) |
| Cory, James H. (Cardiff) | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Cowan, Sir W. H. | Larmor, Sir J. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood) |
| Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Craig, Col. James (Down, E.) | Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert | Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth) |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Henry Page | Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) | Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur |
| Crooks, Rt. Hon. William | Locker-Lampion, G. (Salisbury) | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee | Seely, Lt.-Col. Sir C. H. (Mansfield) |
| Currie, George W. | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Shaw, Hon. A. |
| Dairymple, Hon. H. H. | M'Callum, Sir John M. | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Falk. B'ghs) | Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks) |
| Davies, Ellis William (Elfion) | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | M'Kean, John | Starkey, John B. |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Macmaster, Donald | Stewart, Gershom |
| Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H. | McMicking, Major Gilbert | Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald |
| Doris, William | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Sutton, John E. |
| Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Maden, Sir John Henry | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Essex, Sir Richard Walter | Malcolm, Ian | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Field, William | Mallalieu, Frederick William | Thompson, Rt. Hon. R. (Belfast, N.) |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes | Meux, Hon. Sir Hedworth | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | Millar, James Duncan | Tickler, T. G. |
| Fleming, Sir John | Molloy, Michael | Tootill, Robert |
| Foster, Philip Staveley | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Morrell, Philip | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Gibbs, Col. George Abraham | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Walton, Sir Joseph |
| Gilbert, J. D. | Needham, Christopher T. | Wason, Right Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Goldstone, Frank | Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) | Watson, John Bertrand |
| Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough) | Nolan, Joseph | Watt, Henry Anderson |
| Greig, Colonel James William | Nuttall, Harry | Wedgwood, Lt.-Commander Josiah |
| Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones | Orde-Powiett, Hon. W. G. A. | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William | Palmer, Godfrey Mark | Whitty, Patrick Joseph |
| Hackett, John | Parkes, Sir Edward E. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Hanson, Charles Augustin | Parrott, Sir James Edward | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.) |
| Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Partington, Oswald | Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.) |
| Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.) | Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.) | Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Perkins, Walter F. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Haslam, Lewis | Philipps, Gen. Sir Ivor (Southampton) | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Ponsonby Arthur A. W. H. | Yate, Colonel C. E. |
| Henry, Sir Charles | Pratt, J. W. | Yeo, Alfred William |
| Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Younger, Sir George |
| Hinds, John | Pringle, William M. R. | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. | |
| Holmes, Daniel Turner | Raffan, Peter Wilson | TELLERS FOR THE AVES—Mr. |
| Holt, Richard Durning | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Beck and Mr. J. Hops |
| Hope, Harry (Bute) | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Denniss, E. R. B. | Samuels, Arthur W. |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G. | Fell, Arthur | Shortt, Edward |
| Banner, Sir John S. Harmoed | Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Swift, Rigby |
| Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Wright, Henry Fitzherbert |
| Boyton, J. | Hunt, Major Rowland | |
| Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon) | Nield, Herbert | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Rawlinson and Colonel Gretton |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. DICKINSONI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "on any point of law material to his action in."
The effect of the omission of these words will be to withdraw the limitation on the class of cases which can be appealed against in the County Court to merely questions of law, and to extend appeals to questions of fact also. I 476 understand that in a discussion which took place earlier in the afternoon the Home Secretary gave some intimation that he would be prepared to consider an Amendment on the lines I suggest. This limitation, on the extent to which appeals can be brought from the registration officer, is introduced into this Bill without the direct recommendation of the Conference. The resolution of the Conference 477 was that an appeal from the decision of the registration officer shall lie with the County Court. I do not know what the views of every member of the Conference on the matter may be, but my own opinion was very strongly that the recommendation included all appeals both of law and fact. Indeed, personally, I should not have assented to anything short of that, because I think myself that it would be a mistake for the Committee to leave the registration officer as the final judge in every case. The primary duty of the registration officer is to prepare the list for which he is responsible, and it is his business to see that the various objectors, whether they are party agents or party individuals, appear and argue the points. It appears to me to be inexpedient and not quite fair to the registration officer himself that he should have to adjudicate on what is practically his own work. The idea of the Conference, and I think I may take it that it is the idea of the Committee also, was that the great bulk of the work would fall upon the registration officer, and I agree with the hon. Member who spoke just now in thinking that in a very short time, perhaps not at next election, but soon after that, the registration officers will have got through a great mass of work to the perfect satisfaction of the public, and that after a time there would be very few cases for appeal. Appeals will go to the County Court, and there will be a certain amount of responsibility In bringing an appeal at all. Of course, it would only be in a case where the agent or individual thought he had a very good chance of success that an appeal against the decision of the person who is in charge of this business of the revision of the list as a whole, would be made. At the same time, I must say that in protection of the registration officer himself as well as the security of the public, there should be an opportunity of appealing, both on questions of law and of fact, to the County Court judge or to the deputy judge who may be appointed for this purpose. That is why I propose this Amendment.
§ Sir G. CAVESo far as I can see, full effect is given to the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, reading the words in their wide sense, by allowing an appeal to be made from any decision of the registration officer who places or refuses to place any name on the register. I am disposed to think with my right hon. Friend, however, that in a very short time, after a 478 few registration appeals have been heard, the law will be settled, and appeals afterwards will be very few indeed. With that in view, I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. GILBERTI beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words "but no fees shall be payable to the County Court with respect to such appeal."
My object in putting down this Amendment is that appeals made to the County Court shall be made as cheaply as possible, and shall not be surcharged with ideal charges, and I hope the Home Secretary will see his way to accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. H. P. HARRISBefore the Home Secretary answers, may I point out that I have an Amendment upon the Paper to a similar effect though I think it is preferable to that of the hon. Gentleman's. It is that the rules of Court shall provide that no Court fees shall be charged in the case of any such appeal, and that no costs shall be allowed to any party, but that the Court in its discretion may allow costs on the grounds that the action of any party to the proceedings was frivolous or vexatious. There are no Court fees in the cases before the revising barrister. The Amendment has been drawn to continue that practice. There may be cases of frivolous or vexatious appeals and the Amendment gives the Court discretion in such cases.
§ Mr. GILBERTI am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment in favour of that of the hon. Gentleman.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. H. P. HARRISI beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words, "The rules of Court so made shall provide that no Court fees shall be charged in the case of any such appeal and that no costs shall be allowed to any party, but that the Court in its discretion-may allow costs on the grounds that the action of any party to the proceedings was frivolous or vexatious." I have already explained to the Committee the meaning and purpose of this Amendment.
§ Sir G. CAVEAs the Committee knows very well, there are no costs in the proceedings before the registration officer. 479 When you propose an appeal from that officer I do not think it is desirable to go so far as that We have just accepted an Amendment which allows appeals on questions of fact or law, and that being so, I think there ought to be some check. The costs of the County Court are quite moderate, and those who appeal ought to be prepared to pay the small fees.
§ Mr. GILBERTWould the Home Secretary bring up a list of the fees?
§ Sir G. CAVEThose are supplied by the County Court authorities.
§ Mr. NIELDI am glad to hear the reply of the Home Secretary. It is perfectly easy by the scale to at once determine the quantum of the costs. I should like to remind hon. Gentlemen that there is an important Department of the Government —namely, the Treasury—and there is one thing which I wonder has never attracted the attention of this House, and that is, that the Treasury has always made the County Court a paying one. The scale of fees has been such as to make it pay its own way. Therefore I think the Home Secretary, if he has a conference with the Treasury will be fortified in his opinion. I think it would be very unwise to provide that no legal costs should be paid and that no fees should be chargeable.
§ Mr. ROWLANDSThe reason why this Amendment has been put down is in order to protect the voter from being subjected to anything like serious charges in making an appeal against the decision of the registration officer. The case is vastly different from that where two litigants go into Court over some personal interest. The case we have in mind is, say, that of a man who has been overlooked by the registration officer, or who thinks that a wrong decision has been given or a mistake made, and where the man thinks that he is entitled to his full rights of citizenship. What we want to be sure of— and I think we ought to have some information on the point—is that if there are to be fees, they should be of the lowest possible kind, which, while they will insure that persons will not make vexatious claims, will not at the same time prevent those who have legitimate claims from going to the County Court for protection, and that they will not thereby be mulcted.
§ Mr. DICKINSONNo doubt these appeals will be brought by people who are simply claiming civil rights and who are not claiming anything against any individual or damages or anything of the kind. I must say I think it is rather unwise to put upon a person who is making a claim of the kind the obligation of paying some money first. I am afraid that this will really result in the party agents and party funds having to find the money, and I think that would be most disadvantageous. I do not want a system under which, in order to get ordinary civil rights, some party has got to provide the money. That is a thing which has happened already and is very detrimental in many cases. I regret very much that this embargo should be put upon appeal, as it will necessarily result either in the poor man not getting his rights or in obliging him to go to the party fund in order to obtain them.
Mr. CHANCELLORProbably nine out of ten cases will be appeals against the refusal of the registration officer to put the name on the list. It does seem rather a hardship that the man who feels he has been deprived of his rights as a citizen should have to pay on appeal, while he has not to pay in the case of the refusal before the revising barrister. I feel sure with the simplification of the law and the abolition of the old Acts and a franchise qualification of mere residents' residence and mere occupation that the number of occasions for appeal will be reduced, but I think that those who have grounds for appeal ought not to be penalised.
§ Sir W. BULLAn hon. Member spoke just now of the County Court being overcrowded with this work. I think if these appeals were allowed without fee of any kind they certainly would be overcrowded if anybody were able to go freely to the Court without any cost to himself. I strongly hope that the Home Secretary will not give way on this question. If the man is entitled to a vote he gets his costs.
§ Colonel GREIGWhat would be the effect if these appeals were free? We would have the party agents lodging objections against everybody, and the result would be that you would have every poor man who wants to get on the register harried by free litigation on the part of the party agents.
§ Mr. BUTCHERMay I ask are there any provisions in the county court rules to enable a man to sue in forma pauperis? 481 My reason for asking is this. Under the new franchise I cannot but think, especially with the enormous number of new voters who will be entitled to go on the register, that there may be a considerable number of omissions of persons entitled to be registered. The majority of people so omitted I take it will be poor people, and I think it would be a real hardship if they were prevented from going to the proper tribunal owing to fees being exacted which they might not be able to pay. Under the new procedure I suppose that the man who is improperly left off the register would have to go to the County Court. Therefore it would really be unreasonable that he should be prevented from asserting his rights owing to the difficulty of fees.
§ Sir G. CAVEThe man himself can go to the County Court and state his rights.
§ Mr. BUTCHERWould he not have to pay court fees?
§ Colonel GRETTONThere is one consideration which I think has mot been noticed. We are setting up a new method of registration and great changes in the existing system, and no doubt difficulties and difficult questions will arise which will have to be decided. It would be a hardship, especially upon poor persons, if they have to go to Court and have those cases decided at their instance at first, since they would be the leading cases which would guide registration officers as to the way in which they were to act as to putting people on or off the register. Perhaps something might be, done in order to meet that point to allow the appeals during the first twelve months free of cost or something of that sort, in order to meet the difficulty of the leading cases and of the interpretation of this new Act as known by the practices and decisions of the County Court and possibly of the Court of Appeal. That is a matter which might be considered at a later stage. Reference has been made to the possibility of recourse to party agents in this matter. Perhaps it is a little ungenerous of Members of this House to turn round, after they have successfully emerged from an election and landed in this House, and abuse the party agents. All of us have had to fight elections and we had to have election agents, and very few of us perhaps would have been elected but for the services of the party agent. Parties will have to continue to exist in one form or another, and it seems to me a little un- 482 generous to turn round on the party agents and attack them universally as some hon. Members have done.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONThe person concerned will have had his trial before the registration officer, and surely you cannot call it c, hardship in the case of the appeal to have this provision. As one of our greatest judges remarked, cheap law is like cheap gin, a thing people are better without.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. GILBERTI beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. DICKINSONI beg to move, in Subsection (3), after the word "appeal" ["an appeal shall lie"], to insert the words "on any point of law."
My desire is merely to maintain the law as it at present stands.
§ Sir G. CAVEI am not quite sure whether, as a matter of grammar, the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman ought not to come in after the word "lie" ["an appeal shall lie from any decision"]. I am quite prepared to accept the words as they stand.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. DICKINSON: At the end of Sub-section (6) to insert the words "and all expenses properly incurred by him, including any costs which he may be ordered to pay to the appellant in any appeal, shall be allowed to him as part of the expenses of the revision of the list to which the appeal relates."
§ Mr. DICKINSONI rather fancy the object of my Amendment is covered by a Government Amendment on Clause 13. If the words of the Government Amendment do not meet the point, perhaps the Government will amend it at that stage?
§ Sir G. CAVEYes, Sir.
§ Mr. H. P. HARRISI beg to move, at the end of Subsection (6), to insert the following Sub-section:
(7) Where in the administrative county of London a registration area is situate in more than one County Court district, appeals arising in respect of that area shall be taken to the County Court for the district in which the greater part of such registration area is situate.
§ Sir G. CAVEThe first words of Subsection (1) are, "an appeal shall lie to the County Court as defined by rules of Court." Therefore, the rules in the case put by my hon. Friend which must specify in which County Court the appeal must be brought.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI beg to move, in Sub-section (7), after the word "Treasury" ["allowed by the Treasury"], to insert the words "No assistant judge so appointed shall for eighteen months from the time of his appointment be eligible to serve in Parliament for any constituency which is within the area or jurisdiction of the County Court for which he is so appointed."
I desire that the same rule that applies to revising barristers shall apply to assistant judges.
§ Sir G. CAVEI hope this Amendment is unnecessary. What may happen under Scottish law—
§ Sir G. YOUNGERWe do not have revising barristers in Scotland.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. BUTCHERI should like to deal for a few moments with the position of revising barristers—
§ The CHAIRMANI have noted four hon. and learned Gentlemen in the same position. They cannot reverse our procedure, and go back upon a point which we have already had a full discussion.
§ Mr. BUTCHERI was not going to raise the question, which has already been settled. I was going to refer to Sub-section (7), which says that "the Lord Chancellor may appoint a barrister of at least seven years' standing to act as assistant judge." What I should like to ask the Home Secretary is whether it would be possible to make any representations to the Lord Chancellor as to the advisability of appointing revising barristers to posts of this sort who have had a large experience for a number of years. I am aware that it is in the discretion of the Lord Chancellor, and that that discretion cannot be interfered with; but I should like to know whether it would not be possible that some indication might be given that persons who have acquired that particular experience 484 should, if possible, be selected for the post of assistant judge. If it is not possible, then it might be desirable at a later stage, on Report, to put a Clause or a paragraph in the Sub-section to the effect that their claims should be given proper consideration in making these appointments. Before, however, I consider the probability of making any-such suggestion on Report, I should like to know from the Home Secretary whether it would be possible to suggest to the Lord Chancellor, in some way or another that would carry official weight, that these are persons whose cases are undoubtedly very hard cases, and that they should be given some special consideration in making these appointments.
§ Sir G. CAVERevising barristers have done good work for a great number of years. I am afraid, under this Bill, that work will come to an end. But I shall be exceedingly glad to ask the Lord Chancellor to bear them in mind in making these appointments, and to endeavour so far as he can to give consideration to the fact that these gentlemen are no longer employed. I myself am quite prepared to say that I will make that representation to the Lord Chancellor, and I have no doubt he will bear it in mind.
§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.