HC Deb 16 April 1918 vol 105 cc247-76

Every Regulation and Order in Council, other than an Order in Council made in pursuance of Section one, made under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament, within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after the Regulation or Order is laid before it, praying that the Regulation or Order may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Regulation or Order, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done thereunder.—[Mr. King.]

Brought up, and read the first time.


I beg to move, "That the Clause be now read a second time."

This new Clause was proposed last night, and the Home Secretary intimated at once that he was disposed to consider the insertion of the Clause in the Bill, and requested that I should put it down for to-day, and that he would give us his opinion to-day. I trust it may be possible to pass the Second Reading of this new Clause and add it to the Bill without further discussion. It simply gives to this House the right to control certain matters undertaken by the Government under the powers of this Bill when proceeding under Order in Council. If an Order in Council is issued under this Bill within twenty days of Parliament sitting it would be open to Parliament to pass a Resolution setting that Order in Council aside. The Order in Council would become operative, and anything done under it would not be rendered illegal, even if the House decided to take such a course. It simply, therefore, ensures that the Government of the day, acting under an Order in Council, will have the approval and sanction of the House of Commons in its procedure. This is so reasonable and constitutional in practice, and so consonant with what, I believe, must be the feeling in every part of the House, that I ask the Government to accept it.


I beg to second the Motion.

This Clause, if accepted, will apply to two Clauses in the Bill. The question, of Orders in Council arise in Clause 2, which proposes to apply Conscription to Ireland. Clause 1 is accepted in this new Clause, as provisions have already been made by a special stipulation. This would cover the application of the Clause to Ireland. In regard to Ireland, nobody knows how, or under what circumstances, it is proposed to extend the Act to Ire land. If we pay any attention to the declarations of Ministers, it may be a very considerable time, or it may not, before the Act is extended to Ireland, when circumstances may be very different from what they are at present. In addition to that, the Order in Council has got to pro vide certain modifications and adaptations. They are not going to have the Act applied to Ireland simplicita, as at present, but with modifications and adaptations. We understand that this Act is to be applied to Ireland by de grees—that is, the unmarried men will be called first, then the married men below a certain age; then, finally, all classes above that age. We understand that this Act will apply to Ireland in very much the same way as Conscription was brought in for England. If that is so, this House ought to be consulted as to the successive stages by which the Act is to be brought into operation in regard to Ireland. But the Order in Council does more than this; it does something about which, I think, every lover of law must feel a little amount of anxiety. It can make special provision in respect of the constitution of the civil Court, and when we are told that it is proposed to make special provisions in respect of the constitution of the civil Court, one pricks up one's ears, and thinks that it is about time that the House of Commons had some thing to say about that constitution before the Order in Council is put into force. There arc, therefore, reasons why those Orders in Council should be submitted to this House as other Orders in Council are before they are made irrevocable. The Home Secretary has taken the power not only to make these Orders in Council, but to revoke them or vary them at any time or in any way. It is just as necessary to see what these new Orders in Council are as to see what the original Orders in Council are.

Then we come to Clause 4. The House will remember that there was a very considerable discussion in Committee yester day, and the Home Secretary gave an undertaking to seriously consider whether this Clause should not be incorporated in the Bill in respect of these Regulations. First of all there is a Regulation affecting the constitution of the tribunals. That is a matter which excites the warmest possible interest in this country, and I do submit that we ought to have an opportunity of considering Regulations which affect the constitution of tribunals before they become an irrevocable part of the law. There are Regulations establishing special tribunals, for regulating the making of applications and the grant or renewal of certificates and other things. All these are matters in which the public are greatly concerned. They are matters which affect the happiness, the lives, the liberty and security of a very large number of people, and they are matters which the House of Commons ought to consider, and which should not be left to the absolute unfettered dis- cretion of the Government. The right way of dealing with these matters is by securing that both Orders in Council and Regulations shall be submitted to this House as is done in other cases.

4.0. P.M.


The main object of this proposal is no doubt to secure that an Order in Council applying the Military Service Act to Ire land shall be laid upon the Table of the House, and that there shall be power within a limited period to move in either House an Address for the annulment of such Order in Council. That proposal is, of course, of great importance, and one on which I obtained the leave of the Committee yesterday to consult my colleagues, and I am quite prepared now to announce our view. The object is to obtain opportunity for debate upon such an Order in Council. We are not anxious to avoid discussion of any step which we as a Government take. No Government worth its salt would endeavour to prevent criticism of its actions in the House of Commons, and, even if we did desire to obtain that end, I think that I know the House of Commons well enough by now to be quite sure that the attempt would fail. If we had not the support of the House of Commons in our action, we could not attempt to carry things through. Wheat happens is that if any substantial body of Members differ from the Government, especially on an important matter like this, their views can be made known. Either a vote of want of confidence or a Motion for the Adjournment may be moved, and the Government may afford an opportunity for debate, or the matter may be raised in some other manner. If a substantial body of Members desire it, they must needs be put in a position to debate the action of the Government For those reasons, and mainly for the first, that we do not desire to avoid discussion of our action, we are prepared in principle to accept this Clause so far as Orders in Council are concerned. The important Clause to which this new Clause would apply is Clause 2, the Irish Clause, though it might possibly come in with regard to the details of other Clauses. But, as regards the time suggested, we think that twenty-one days is too long. If the House is prepared to take fourteen days, that would give a sufficient opportunity for a Motion for an Address.


Fourteen days after the Orders are made?


Fourteen days after the House has first sat after the Order in Council is made. I do not think that we could apply this to Regulations. They deal with matters of procedure, some of them of importance and some of them of very small importance indeed. They must be put into operation at once. Under the old Military Service Acts Regulations are made without this permission, I am pre pared to accept the Clause, provided that a change is made in the number of days and provided that it is confined to Orders in Council.


Many of us welcome very cordially the announcement of the Home Secretary. So far as this proposed new Clause relates to the application of the Bill to Ireland, it is agreed that there should be a Parliamentary opportunity, if opportunity is desired, of discussing the provisions to be made. No difficulty will be found with regard to restricting the number of days to fourteen, which is, if my recollection serves me aright, the more usual form of the Clause than the longer period of twenty-one days. With regard to the other reservation of the Home Secretary, I must confess that I have a considerable feeling of doubt. Under Clause 4 very wide powers are conferred on the Executive to reconstitute all tribunals throughout the country, and greatly to modify their powers and procedure. I think it was felt in most quarters of the House that there ought to be some sort of opportunity, if opportunity was desired, to consider the course which the Government propose. So far as the distinction drawn between Regulations and Orders in Council is concerned, I think that I am right in saying that it was proposed when the Bill was introduced, as Clause 4 was originally drawn, that this should be done by Order in Council, and in order to meet the views of one or two hon. Members that was altered in Committee to Regulations. I was not quite sure why it was desired to alter from Order in Council to Regulations, but if the consequence of that, which was apparently quite a trivial Committee verbal alteration, is that the House is to be deprived of its formal opportunity of discussing and considering any proposals that are made by the Government in the exercise of powers under Clause 4, I think that that would be a most unfortunate circumstance.


If that change had not been made, we could not have agreed to apply this new Clause to Clause 4.


The Home Secretary a few minutes ago said that Regulations were not, as a rule, submitted to Parliament. I think that there is a certain number of precedents—the Old Age Pensions Act; and I think there are some dealing with education. I am fairly sure that that is so. I believe that one Regulation made, if I remember rightly, under the Old Age Pensions Act, was rejected on an Address to the Crown. How ever that may be, the fact remains that the Government, in introducing the Bill, originally considered that the matter of Clause 4 was a matter for Order in Council. That has since been altered by Amendment in Committee. I think that we should be well advised to go back on that, and that it would be well, if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that Regulations should not be laid on the Table of the House, and calls the document issued by the Government under the Clause an Order in Council and not a Regulation. The right hon. Gentleman said that in a matter of such importance as the extension of the Bill to Ireland an occasion can be found either by a formal Motion of Adjournment of the House, or in some other manner to raise debate, if debate is desired. That is true, but with respect to comparatively minor matters, such as those dealt with in Clause 4, that does not apply, and those are precisely the kind of subjects with respect to which it is proper to insert words such as those now before the House. I therefore hope that the Government will reconsider their intention with regard to matters dealt with in Clause 4, and with regard to affording the House opportunity for discussion if it is desired.


I think that the Order in Council ought to be discussed within fourteen days of the day on which it is submitted. With regard to Regulations, whatever we want now we do want some speeding up in connection with appeals, and that sort of thing at the present moment. The Regulations under which we are working were prepared originally in connection with the Derby scheme. These Regulations were issued by the Local Government Board and changed from time to time as circumstances required, and were never submitted to the House of Commons. The effect has been that endless opportunities were given for asking for reviews of decisions by tribunals. It is not at all unusual for a case to have gone from the local tribunal to the Appeal Tribunal and from that to the Central Tribunal, and for the members of the local tribunal to find that after a certain lapse of time the case comes back to them again on some other point of view and with some new fact, and people have run through all these tribunals very often two and three times, which was a perfect absurdity. The opportunities for appeal were too extensive and were much too easily availed of, and clever solicitors in very many cases have, been able to keep men out of the Army for very long periods after they should have been there. I hope that, so far as Regulations are concerned, they will not be subject to debate in this House.


There is no delay. The Regulations come into force immediately. They are not held up for consideration by the House. If the House desires subsequently to debate them and secure modification it can secure such modification, but without prejudice to anything that has been done meanwhile. That is the course that has been adopted with respect to the Schedule of Occupations under the Order in Council which has been issued by the Minister of National Service which comes into operation at once.


But during that whole period of fourteen days, or what ever it is, everybody remains in a condition of uncertainty. Nobody knows what may happen. That is not right. There has been no objection in the past to those Regulations. We have less reason now to change them than ever there was. Above all things we ought to see that those Regulations do provide some reasonable and fair appeal, but not the unfair appeals that are so common now.

Colonel Sir C. SEELY

Under this Clause some of the work to be done is described as being done by Regulation made by the Local Government Board. But later on the Clause says that any Order in Council made under this Sub-section may be revoked or varied by any subsequent Order in Council. It will be within the recollection of the Home Secretary and those who listened to the Debate yesterday that there was a general understanding that important Regulations or Orders made under this Clause were to be laid on the Table of the House. This is under stood by this new Clause. I listened to what the Home Secretary said, and that was the impression left on my mind. I can quite see his objection to have Regulations delayed, as was referred to by the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayrshire, by being subject to this provision. But I think that there might very well be Regulations regarding these tribunals, in which there is great public interest, which affect very seriously the interests of many individuals in this country and many important classes which really should come under the provisions which the Government have now agreed to of laying them on the Table of this House, and I would suggest to the Home Secretary that when considering it he should give us some understanding as to what class of Regulations should be made by the Local Government Board, and what class should be made by Orders in Council which would be subject, if he accepts the Amendment, to the provisions of being laid on the Table of the House. I think that it would get over the objections to which my right hon. Friend has referred and which he pressed him upon, if he would say that important Regulations, such as Regulations affecting the attitude or constitution of the tribunals, or matters of that kind, would be made by Orders in Council, and that it is only matters of administrative detail such as technical questions connected with appeal and things of that kind which would be left to the Local Government Board. I make the suggestion, because I think that it will meet the matter.


I desire to sup port what has fallen from my hon. and gallant Friend. There are two quite distinct kinds of Regulations. There are Regulations for speeding up the proceedings, and I agree with my hon. Friend (Sir G. Younger) that there is no special need for those to be laid upon the Table of the House. The method adopted with regard to those has, on the whole, worked well and no case has been made out for a change, but under Clause 4 the Government are taking power to deal with much more important and more organic matters than they did in previous Acts. There is the power to constitute nominated tribunals everywhere, instead of those appointed by the local authorities, and there is the power to appoint special tribunals. I would appeal to my right hon. Friend as to whether it could not be made clear whether they are Regulations or Orders in Council which are to be made by the Local Government Board—I want them to be made by that Department— affecting the constitution of tribunals, or the appointment of special tribunals, that they should be laid upon the Table of the House. I quite agree that those which have to do with speeding up procedure on all the matters referred to by my hon. Friend (Sir G. Younger) need not be laid upon the Table of the House. They are strictly matters of detail and of procedure. The others deal with matters of far greater weight and interest and are matters of which Parliament ought to have an opportunity of taking cognisance.


I think that the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) was slightly inaccurate when he referred to this particular proposal as unequalled by our previous procedure. If he will cast his mind back on previous Bills dealing with this question, he will remember that the main provision of those Bills received statutory sanction. This is a wholly new Clause, in which the real sub stance of the Bill is put in the form of Regulations. Anyone who will glance at the power given to the Minister in the execution of this Bill to proceed by way of Regulation will realise at once that he has power to do everything that is really substantial under the Bill in the form of a Regulation. That is a power which, in such serious matters, should not be dele gated by this House to any Minister or Department. The Home Secretary said that we were making a demand that was really unprecedented. May I remind him that to-day we stand at some advantage by reason of our experience? It is simply because experience has shown us that Ministers and Departments may transform the whole spirit and intention of an Act by the form of their Regulations that it becomes necessary for this House to be on its guard against delegating its powers to any Minister or Department. I hope that the Home Secretary will seriously consider the question of modifying the proposal by adopting the suggestion of my hon. Friend. Certainly, on the weightier matters dealt with in these Regulations, we ought to have greater security than that which the Home Secretary at present proposes to give us.


This concession by the Government may be either substantial or illusory. The previous Acts in no form applied to Ireland, and therefore the Order in Council, if genuinely issued, should take the form of an Act of Parliament. If it takes the form of an Act of Parliament, it will have to embrace not merely the application of the Act to Ire land, but every Regulation which the right hon. Gentleman says is to be dealt with by means of this procedure in regard to England, because the Regulation Section as now framed does not apply to Ireland. It is the English Local Government Board that will have to administer it. You are therefore in the extra ordinary position, if you mean honestly as regards Ireland, that you must give us in that country something that you refuse to give to England, namely, the power to challenge these Regulations. That is a most repugnant and inconsistent position. You state to the English Members. "We will not lay upon the Table of the House the Regulations, because they are not within the Order in Council," but you cannot apply any Regulation to Ireland without an Order in Council, and there fore, as I construe the Statute, if you mean genuinely by Ireland, you are giving us something which you are refusing to England and Scotland. That is an absurd position.

Sir G. CAVEindicated dissent.


I say "if you mean genuinely by Ireland." I start with that proposition. But as you do not mean to submit the English Regulations to the House, you do not mean genuinely by Ireland. Section 4 contains the provision as to applications for certificates of exemption and as to calling up. How is Section 4 to be applied to Ireland? Am I to be told that the Government are going to enact by Order in Council that the Irish Local Government Board may make Regulations upon matters wider than you have allowed the English Local Government Board to make in regard to England and Scot land? We will not have that. You must say upon what subjects the Irish Local Government Board is to make Regulations. We cannot entrust to the Irish Local Government Board power to make Regulations of a wider kind than are given in the case of England and Scotland, nor can we entrust the Irish Local Government Board with power to make the Regulations which you are allowing the English Local Government Board to make. I will tell the House why. This is a matter of vital substance to us. After a fight which lasted twenty years, a solemn compact was made between both sides of the House that prisoners in Ireland should not be compelled to give evidence, or to submit themselves to cross-examination. If ever there was a bargain made solemnly by a Minister it was that made by the present Foreign Secretary that never would any attempt be made in Ireland to subject prisoners to the horrors of cross-examination by Crown prosecutors. This Bill for Ireland is essentially a criminal Bill, and, as regards Ireland, you are taking power to create special Courts. In England the ordinary magistrates will act under the Reserve Forces Act and the other military Acts, but in Ireland you have taken power by this Section to take away from the ordinary magistrate the ordinary power to inflict penalties and punishments for offences under this Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 4 reads: If any question arises at any legal proceedings under the Reserve Forces Acts, 1882 to 1907, or any Orders or Regulations made there under, whether any certificate of exemption has been withdrawn, or has otherwise ceased to be in force, the Court may require the holder of the certificate to give evidence on the Section, and if satisfactory evidence is not given to the contrary the certificate shall be deemed to have been withdrawn or to have otherwise ceased to be in force. In other words, if any man in Ireland says, "I have an exemption paper," you throw the burden of proof upon him, and you compel him to go into the box and give evidence in his own defence. And before what Court? Before the drum head courts-martial which you are setting up under Section 2, which says: An Order in Council under this Section may, as respects the civil Court before which proceedings in respect of any offence punish able on summary conviction under the Reserve Forces Acts, 1882, the Army Act, the Military Service Acts, 1916 to 1918, or this Act; or any Orders or Regulations made there under are to be brought in Ireland—

  1. (a) make special provision with respect to the constitution of the Court; or
  2. (b) assign any such proceedings to such civil Court or Courts as may be specified in the Order."
You are going in Ireland—a country which is already practically in arms against this Bill—to set aside the ordinary justices and the whole of the ordinary tribunals of law. You are going to take away trial by jury and all matters of that kind. If you like, you can take away trial by judges. You have taken power to do away with the King's Bench under this Sub-section. You are going to subject a prisoner in Ireland, unless these Regulations be modified, to a state of things to which no English prisoner would be subjected. It is not merely that you are working against the sentiment of the country, but, while you are pretending to parity and equality, you are giving us practically ascendancy, tyranny, and slavery. There is no Act passed for England and Ireland together which receives the same treatment in both countries. On the sham cry of equality of sacrifice, you are going to give us drumhead courts-martial. Accordingly, when the right hon. Gentleman objects to the Regulations being laid before the House, I ask, Is it intended that the Irish Order in Council should be plenary in its character? In other words, will the Order in Council as laid before this House be a complete code of law, as is the Act which applies to England? We know already from the right hon. Gentleman. He says that is impossible, because yester day he made the statement, which certainly rather capsized me, that there was to be no Registration Act for Ireland. There is a Registration Act for Ireland. The English Registration Act, so-called, applies to Ireland. Yet, at that box yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman made the astonishing statement that there was no necessity for registration to be applied to Ireland.

The effect of that, as I understand it, is that the police in every district, without any legal fetter, are to be allowed to say, "All you Catholic fellows are the lusty fellows we want. Your superstition is intense, but you would make splendid brigadiers or privates. Superstition will stop a bullet just as well as the Thirty-nine Articles." Accordingly, as there will be no registration, as I understand it, the local police will select recruits just as the sheriffs long ago selected juries. If you are to have no Registration Act in Ireland, is the Order in Council, which the right hon. Gentleman says he is prepared to lay upon the Table as regards Ireland, to be a complete code or not? They have just inserted a provision to this effect: "Any Order in Council or Proclamation made under this Act may be revoked or varied by any subsequent Order in Council or Proclamation made in the like manner, and subject to the like conditions." If you bring forward an Order in Council simply saying this, "Clauses B, C and D shall apply to Ireland," there would be nothing to attract the attention of Englishmen to the frame of that particular Order. The Government may be even luxuriant in their response to our demands for time. They might say ''We will give you three days, if you like, for the discussion of this matter," and then, when this House has had its fill of this discussion about Ireland, and settled the matter by an enormous majority, on the somewhat harmless-looking provisions of the Government, and when you are all thoroughly sick of Ireland, which you generally are, from the 1st of January to the 31st of December, then an amended Order may be made. I admit that would also have to be laid on the Table, but it would come before a wearied, tired and stale House, and Members would say, "Hav'nt we had all this before? We gave them three days last month, and here they are again. Was there ever such an unreasonable lot of superstitious Papists as these Irish?"

My question to the Government is, "Is this a real concession or a sham concession? Will this Order in Council contain the plenary application of all these Acts to Ireland, so that the House may be apprised, and know the length, breadth, height, depth and scope of your intentions as regards our country?" That is a plain question. I find myself met, as regards England, with the statement that the Regulations are not to be submitted. Why, I could, in a morning, I venture to say, completely baffle all the Irish Members if I were the draftsman under this Act. I will tell you what I would do. There is nothing more simple. It is as easy as lying. I would have an Order in Council applying the Bill to Ireland. There you are. I would then have in that Order power given to the Local Government Board to make Regulations. Nothing more than that the Local Government Board make Regulations. Remember that these things have the effect of Statutes. You cannot certiorari them; you cannot go to the King's Bench and apply that these Regulations shall be annulled, or done away with, on any ground, and if you did it would be no use. The judges would be against you. I am not complaining of the judges; they are doing their duty, or what they think is their duty, in construing these Acts of Parliament in what the old patents call "the most benignant manner to the Crown." I am not criticising the way in which these Orders and Regulations are construed in the Courts; I am only pointing out the powerlessness of the Irish people against such a procedure, which I say would be so facile and so easy. Therefore, I end as I began, by saying if this be a genuine concession, as I acknowledge it to be in form, is it the intention of the Government to decant into the Order in Council, for the benefit of the Irish people and the enlightenment of their representatives, the whole of the law—the law relating to magistrates, the law relating to age, the law relating to exemptions, the whole of the laws? Conditions are different in Ire land from what they are here. If you turn the handle of a board in Dublin there is an enemy behind the counter. Accordingly, it is not too much to ask the Government, is the Order in Council intended to be what I call plenary and sufficient, or is it intended to be illusory and unsatisfactory?


There is one class of Regulation which I should like to ask the Home Secretary to allow to be submitted to Parliament. Under Clause 4 there is a type of Regulation with which the law can hardly be very familiar—the Regulations which have the power of overriding Acts of Parliament, and in so far as there is inconsistency between a Regulation and an Act of Parliament, the Act of Parliament goes under. When you make a Regulation of that kind is it clearly a slight concession to the House to place it on the Table so that it may be subsequently revoked, even though it has full validity for the time being. This, I submit, might be included in the Amendment we are now discussing.


Am I going to get any reply?

Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.


I beg to move to leave out the words "Regulation and."

I have listened to the arguments which have been used in favour of keeping Regulations in this Clause, but I do not see my way to accept the suggestion. You cannot distinguish one Regulation from others. I think you must apply the same test to the whole of Clause 4. The present Regulations are not subject to this condition. There is no provision at all in the first Military Service Act for the laying of Regulations. There are numbers of them. The House knows perfectly well they have to be altered from time to time. They are made by the Local Government Board, as these Regulations will be. They deal with procedure, with form, with machinery at all events, and I venture to submit they are different entirely from Orders in Council. I have tried to meet what I believe to be the general wish of the House, and I do sincerely hope that the concessions will be accepted as meeting the justice of the case, and that this Amendment will be accepted.


Then I am right.

Question proposed, "That the words ' Regulation and' stand part of the proposed Clause."


May I ask you to put the word "Regulation" only, so as to admit an alternative Amendment, of which I have given notice?

Question proposed, "That the word ' Regulation ' stand part of the proposed Clause."


I hope the House will oppose the Amendment of the Home Secretary. I think he ought to under stand that the country does not trust the Local Government Board or any other Department of the Government in the making of these Regulations. Members of the community have had sufficient experience of Acts passed in this House and of the interpretation of those Acts by the Departments concerned. Men who have been called up for the purpose of serving in the Army have been subjected from time to time to a series of Regulations which could not and have never been made knowledgable to them. Over and over again men have been taken into the Army simply because they did not know the Regulations, and those responsible for drawing these Regulations in many cases have not even taken the trouble to point out to the men concerned what powers they had under the Regulations. There are so many cases that I am quite clear in my own mind that certainly I will not support, the Government in this Amendment. I would not give to any Govern- ment Department power to draw Regulations affecting the lives and property of so many other people in the country; and I hope the House will resent this attempt, after putting this Act on the Statute Book, to place further autocratic powers in the hands of men who have abused them consistently ever since they got them.


I am sure we are all grateful to the Home Secretary for having met us as far as he has, but I do not think we can accept it as complete satisfaction. I do hope it may still be possible to come to what I call an accommodation with the Home Secretary by distinguishing between Regulations which are to be laid before the House and those which are not. There is in particular one Regulation to be made in pursuance of Section 4, Sub section (1), paragraph (a), dealing with the constitution of tribunals, which is a Regulation to which I think everybody attaches the very greatest importance. Nothing can be more important than the constitution of the tribunals before which you are going to take the cases. If the Home Secretary can see his way to allow that particular Regulation, at any rate, to be one which has to be laid on the Table of the House, and approved by the House, I think we may regard the matter, if not as satisfactory settled, as a compromise. Therefore, if this Amendment of the Home Secretary's is not carried, I should be ready to move after the word "Regulation" to insert the words "made in pursuance of Section 4, Sub-section (1), paragraph (a)."

If the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to agree to this suggestion, then I shall be willing to accept the rest of his proposal; but if he does not see his way to allow the reconstitution of the tribunals to be a matter to be reviewed by this House, then I am afraid I must press my opposition to a Division.


I wish to support my hon. Friend in the appeal he has made to the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman has advanced certain arguments why this proposal should not be accepted. He says, in the first place, it is impossible to distinguish between the various matters to be dealt with by the Regulations, and that some are comparatively trivial, and not such as the House is accustomed to have laid before it. But my hon. Friend has made a proposal which will enable us to distinguish between the various matters. Clause 4, Sub-section (1, a), deals with a topic which is of very great importance, namely, the reconstitution of the tribunals through out the country which are to deal with military service questions. I think the House will agree that if the Home Secretary will go so far as to accept the application of this Amendment to that one paragraph, and to restrict it to that particular paragraph, we can agree to the rest of his proposals. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman states that the Regulations may have to be altered from time to time. That may be so, but the Amendment need not interpose any difficulty or delay in the alterations which can be effected just as the original Regulations was made, and no delay therefore need be involved, although it will afford an opportunity for the House subsequently, if it so desires, to propose an Address with regard to the alteration. Further, the Home Secretary told us that these were Regulations which, in their nature, were not suited to be of a statutory character. I submit to him, however, that the particular Regulations reconstituting the tribunals are Regulations dealing with matters previously dealt with by the Statute itself, and not merely by Regulations or Orders in Council. To show that that is necessary we have this very remarkable provision in the Bill, which has been already referred to: Any Regulations made under this Sub-section shall have full effect notwithstanding any thing in the provisions of the Military Service Acts, 1916 to 1918, and those provisions, so far as they are inconsistent with any Regulations so made, shall be repealed. This Regulation absolutely overrides the existing statutory provision. May I quote an authority on this point to whom we are accustomed to defer? I find that Erskine May, with regard to Orders and Regulations which have to be laid before Parliament, in order to allow an opportunity for an Address to be moved with a view to their amendment or cancellation, refers specially to the Orders and Regulations made for factories and workshops under the Rules of the Supreme Court of Judicature. Surely if it is customary for this House to require Orders and Regulations determining the conditions of work in factories—important as they are—to be laid before it, it ought also to have before it the Regulations under which it is proposed to constitute the whole machinery for requiring military service from hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens. This is a matter of primary importance, and I would respect fully urge upon my right hon. Friend that he should give the small concession which is desired by my hon. Friend who proposes to move a subsequent Amendment.


I should like to support the appeal which has been made to the Home Secretary. It is well known that a great deal of unrest has been caused in the country during the last two and a half years by the Regulations which. have been issued, and not only by the Regulations themselves, but also by the way in which they have been interpreted by the bodies set up to administer them. Anything that this House can do to pre vent unrest and discontent ought to be done. I therefore join with the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke in appealing to the Home Secretary to make the Amendment suggested, as I am assured that he will be the gainer and not the loser as a result of the concession.


My right hon. Friend has shown this afternoon the disposition which he has always shown to meet the wishes of the Committee if he can possibly do so. But on this matter I do want to submit how extraordinarily difficult it is to-distinguish between one group of Regulations and another group. It has been suggested by one of the speakers that some of these Regulations are organic. I suppose others are, consequently, inorganic. We have been asked to make an exception in a particular case, but my right hon. Friend feels he must adhere to the view that these Regulations should not be laid on the-Table of the House—even those for re constituting the tribunals and for creating new areas. I would point out that it is extraordinarily difficult to separate these particular Regulations from the others. I contemplate that we shall, at all events, start by nominating, to a very large extent, the old tribunals.


Who will have the nominations?


The Government will have the nominations.




The Appeal Courts are now nominated by the Government.


Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us who will have the power under this Act to nominate the tribunals in England, and who will have the power to nominate them in Ireland? Will it be in the power of the Local Government Board, if it chooses, to make a Regulation saying that the tribunals may be appointed by the military authorities?


The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Appeal Courts are nominated now by the Local Government Board in consultation with local opinion. There is consultation with chairmen of county councils and with other local government bodies, and every effort is made to obtain a local view as to the personnel of these Appeal Courts. The Appeal Tribunals will be nominated, therefore, by the Local Government Board, a body which has, per haps, far greater knowledge than is possessed by any other Department of the material to be found in each locality which is suitable and valuable for service on these tribunals. It is the Local Government Board which, to a large extent, will be responsible for these tribunals. While I contemplate that a very large user will be made of the old material, which has acted so well and done such good service, it will undoubtedly be necessary to change the personnel of some of these tribunals and also to change the areas over which those tribunals will operate. On these matters Regulations will have to be made, and they will have to be framed sometimes very quickly. They ought not to be subject to any period of uncertainty, such as would result if they had to be laid on the Table of the House, and to be made liable to reversal by the House by Resolution. I do not think the House will altogether lose its control over the Regulations, even if they do not have to be laid on the Table.

There are many ways in which questions can be raised with regard to this machinery. The Regulations will be circulated as quickly as possible to every Member of this House, so that they, at any rate, may be informed of their nature, and then it will be possible by means of question and answer here, or by Debates in the Chamber, to discuss their merits or demerits. I have no doubt it will be found that the House will have a good deal to say about the Regulations, and no doubt it will help us, as it has hitherto done, in generally governing the action of these tribunals. In view of that, I think my right hon. Friend is right when he says he is not prepared to lay the Regulations on the Table of the House. The result of doing so would be to create great uncertainty for a period as to whether or not the House was going to move an Address with regard to them. I am confident it is the desire of the Government, and it certainly is the desire of my Department, to make these Regulations as widely known as possible. I believe a very great deal of the unpopularity which might have attended Conscription in this country has been avoided, thanks to the work publicly done by the local tribunals. It would have been very difficult in this country to have imposed Conscription on our fellow countrymen unless we had at the same time given them opportunities for publicly stating their case before the tribunals, which, I repeat, have done their work uncommonly well.

5.0 P.M.


The attitude taken up by the Home Secretary on this question is exceedingly disappointing. I do not, of course, read any sinister motive into the views he has expressed or into those of the President of the Local Government Board, but I must say that their reluctance to invite an expression of opinion by the House of Commons as to various sections of their work is very strange. With great respect, it is, I suggest, a gross exaggeration to suggest that to leave it within the power of the House to present an Address upon any of these Regulations will involve any undue delay or any element of uncertainty with regard to the Regulations for establishing the tribunals to be set up. Nothing of the kind would result. If the Regulations are such as to satisfy the House that they adequately protect the interests of the citizens of this country, no difficulty will be raised in regard to them and no uncertainty need be felt. I support this particular suggestion of the hon. Member for the Hexham Division (Mr. Holt) because I want to give stability and confidence to these tribunals, and not because I want to produce unrest or uncertainty. The most important thing that will have to be impressed on the minds of the people of this country is that these tribunals have been properly constituted, and that Parliament has control over them. There is a peculiarly sensitive disposition just now on the part of the people against government by officials. I do not know how far it is justified, but nothing would do more to undermine public confidence in these tribunals than the suggestion that they are the creation of officials and that the House of Commons is prevented from exercising proper control over them. If we desire the tribunals to work efficiently, we must remove all cause of distrust regarding them amongst the people, and I would press upon the Home Secretary and upon the President of the Local Government Board to reconsider their decision and not be so prejudiced against the suggestion which has been put forward. We are pressing this urgently, because we believe it will be of supreme importance, and that if they will only concede this one point, that the constitution of the tribunals and the definition of the areas shall be subject to be laid upon the Table of the House, so that the House may give its opinion where necessary, it will give confidence and do much to make the working of the tribunals smooth and efficient.


I agree with so much of what my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board has said that I regret the more I cannot accept fully the rest. I desire to point out to him and to the Home Secretary that this distinction was drawn in the Bill of 1916, and that yon then put on the Statute Book the composition of the tribunals and the area in which they were to act. The Committee, some with more willingness than others, but the Committee as a whole, accepted the substitution of nomination for the method put in that Act. Surely it is fair that those particular Regulations constituting the tribunals and defining their areas should be distinct from other Regulations as similar ones were in the Act of 1916. In other words, that you should have the opportunity by laying upon the Table of this House or in the other place of raising the question of composition and areas, and that these should be subject to revision, and that the other things in the amended Clause 4, in the rest of Section A, in the whole of Sub section (b), and what may be properly interpreted Sub-section (c) and (e), because (b) goes out, should be left to Regulations which are not subject to be laid upon the Table of the House. I do hope my right hon. Friends will allow the same distinction to be drawn in this Bill as was drawn in the Act of 1916, because the composition and the determining of areas are permanent things, while the others, being matters of procedure, are on an entirely different plane. I therefore join my earnest appeal with those which have already been made, and I know that my right hon. Friends are aware that I do so not to hinder but to help them in their work.


I should like to join in the appeal which has been so generally made that this Amendment may be acceded to. I think, as has been said again and again, that it will help the Government rather than hamper or hinder them. The President of the Local Government Board seemed to see difficulties in the way, but his difficulties have relation to more general Regulations, and I cannot see that the difficulties which he makes apply to the special character of these Regulations. It will meet the desire of the House, and I am sure it will be accepted in the country, and I sincerely hope that even now the Government will accept the Amendment.


I have listened to the case which has been put up both by the Home Secretary and the President of the Local Government Board in regard to the Amendment, and most Members who have been endeavouring to ascertain the intention of the Government will agree that they have not been very fortunate in the arguments they have put forward. The House has been told by the President of the Local Government Board that it will be difficult to disentangle the words of the Regulations which it will be necessary to lay upon the Table of the House from the other Regulations in respect of which this is not required. If anybody takes the trouble to look over former Regulations made by the Local Government Board he will see perfectly clearly that all these are divided, as it were, into special compartments dealing with the special subjects which naturally arise. There is no crossing between the different Regulations even as they are at present issued, and if the President of the Local Government Board were asked at present to divide the existing Regulations into the parts which it would be necessary to lay upon the Table of the House and those which it would not be, he could do so very easily.

Indeed, the fact that such a puerile argument is put forward seems to be evidence of the poor case which the Government have.

The other point was the question of time. In respect of the matter of the constitution of the tribunals this can hardly apply at all. The existing tribunals would go on working until the new tribunals are ready to take their place, so that there cannot be any possibility of delay. Surely, therefore, the contention that was so forcibly and yet so moderately put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton must be accepted by the House As the law stands at the present time these tribunals are constituted under the Second Schedule of the first Military Service Act. There is ample provision and ample protection there in respect alike of the areas and of the persons who are to be selected as members of those tribunals. Why, then, in moving this statutory provision, do they refuse to allow Parliament the right to veto, as it were, in respect of the new arrangements which they are setting up? I think if at any time it was necessary to have this statutory protection it is now, when for the first time you are going to call up men in respect of whom special difficulties will arise. There were difficulties in regard to those who came within the former military age, but those difficulties are small compared with the difficulties which arise in respect of the men between forty-one and fifty-one—in regard to their business interests, and so on. It is precisely at the time when you are going to create these difficulties that you are going to set up tribunals in which there will be less public confidence. At least, you are creating a suspicion that there will be less public confidence in them because you refuse to Parliament the right to say who these tribunals are and in respect of what areas they are to act. I think that though it is comparatively a small concession for the Government to make, if they now hesitate to make it it will be the duty of the House to mark their resentment of the course they are taking by dividing on this Amendment.


The Government surely must have expected that some Amendment would be made to this Clause. They have deliberately provided in this Clause that there shall be done by Regulation what would in ordinary cases be subject to express legislation by this House. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board sought to suggest that there is some analogy between the class of Regulations provided for in the first Subsection of Clause 4 with the class of Regulation which the Local Government Board has power to make already. Nothing could be more false. At present the constitution of the tribunal is determined by express legislation put on the Statute Book. Now for the first time the Government take power by this Act to constitute the tribunals by Regulation. They have not given us the smallest information as to how this is to be done. I challenged the right hon. Gentleman by interruption to tell us who was to constitute the tribunals. I thought he was somewhat gingerly in his answers, and I do not know that he expressly pledged himself to the proposition that the Regulations would provide that the tribunals would be constituted by the Local Government Board.

Anything is open under the Act as it stands. The Regulation may provide that the appeal should be to a tribunal suggested by the competent military authority. That would be perfectly within the four corners of this Act; for what does the Act say?—that the Local Government Board may make Regulations providing for applications for certificates of exemption being made to such tribunals constituted in such manner as may be authorised in the Regulation. Everything is left at large. We are not told whether Regulations will name A, B, C. and D, and say that these shall be the gentlemen who will form the tribunal for such an area, or whether the form of the Regulations will be such that the county council in any area, subject to the veto of the Local Government Board, may select so many persons to constitute it. I put the extreme case, though I hope it is not a possible one, that it is within the four corners of the Act that the Local Government Board might in their Regulations say that the tribunal shall be selected by the competent military authority in any area. I want to know why, if the Government did not intend to leave this at large, they have not put some limiting words in their Sub-section (a)? They could very well have put in tribunals constituted by the Local Government Board" or in some way have indicated the manner in which the tribunals are to be constituted.

My interest in this matter is an Irish interest. I know perfectly well that the Government have not the smallest inten- tion of doing in England anything which would shock English public opinion, but we have no such protection in Ireland, and I am bound to say that the view expressed by the Home Secretary last night as to the form in which the Order in Council extending this Act to Ireland would take is not one which, distinguished lawyer as he is, I would have any confidence in an Irish Court accepting. It is suggested that under Clause 2 of this Act extending the Act to Ireland no other modifications can be made except modifications, as we used to say mutatis mutandis, to adapt the Act to Irish conditions. That is not the Act at all. It says," with such modifications and adaptations as may be made by the Order for the purpose of making it applicable to Ireland." Consequently it is perfectly possible that even though the Local Government Board in England may have the appointment of the tribunals and may draw them from the classes which the right hon. Gentleman indicated, in Ireland the Local Government Board may well say, "In Ireland we have not the material for creating tribunals such as you have in England, where the Military Service Act has been in operation for several years."

Tribunals have been working in Eng land, and, as the right hon. Gentleman told us, as many as eighteen hundred have been sitting there already, so that the work of selecting the tribunals has been done. In Ireland the Local Government Board may very well say that they have no such materials in Ireland and that they cannot work this Act in Ireland as it has been worked in England and Scotland. Consequently the tribunals in Ireland may be constituted on entirely different lines. Surely when the Government deliberately

selects as matters for Regulation this which is normally a matter for express legislation in this House, the least we may ask is that when the Regulation is made it shall be laid on the Table of the House as an Order in Council would be, so that if any thing outrageous is done we shall, at any rate, have the opportunity of coming before the House to criticise it, attack it, and condemn it. I cannot but think that this extraordinary method of drafting, adopted for the first time, has one thing alone in view, namely, the situation in Ireland, and that while my English Friends, who express apprehension here, will find they have no cause to fear, when this Act comes to be extended to Ireland, they will see why it was drawn in this particular way. Then we shall know that the reason for taking this extraordinary and unusual course is that they shrink from the possibility of having their work submitted to the open criticism of Parliament.


I shall only call the attention of the Government to one fact. We have been discussing this question for over half an hour, and the Government have not had one voice speaking in its favour except the two Members who have spoken from the Treasury Bench. Members from every part of the House without exception have spoken against the Government's proposal. In view of that fact, and believing that, after all, the Government wish to have the general support of the Committee, I hope they will, even at the last moment, withdraw their Amendment.

Question put, "That the word 'Regulation' stand part of the proposed Clause."

The House divided: Ayes. 156; Noes, 249.

Division No. 24.] AYES. [5.18 p.m.
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) Clancy, John Joseph Esmonde, Capt. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Anderson, William C. Clough, William Esmonde, Sir T. (Wexford, N.)
Arnold, Sydney Collins, Sir William (Derby) Farrell, James Patrick
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Condon, Thomas Joseph Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Cosgrave, James (Galway, E.) Ffrench, Peter
Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) Crean, Eugene Field, William
Bentham, George Jackson Crooks, Rt. Hon. William Finney, Samuel
Billing, Noel Pemberton Crumley, Patrick Fitzgibbon, John
Black, Sir Arthur W. Cullinan, John Fitzpatrick, John Lalor
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas Davies, Timothy (Louth) Flavin, Michael Joseph
Bliss, Joseph Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Galbraith, Samuel
Boland, John Pius Denman, Hon Richard Douglas Gilbert, James Daniel
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Devlin, Joseph Geddard, Rt Hon. Sir Daniel Ford
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Dillon, John Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)
Brocklehurst, Col William B. Donelan, Captain A. Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William
Brunner, John F. L. Donovan, John Thomas Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)
Bryce, John Annan Donnelly, Patrick Hackett, John
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Doris, William Harbison, T. J. S.
Buxton, Noel Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir James B. Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)
Byrne, Alfred Duffy, William J. Hayden, John Patrick
Chancellor, Henry George Duncan, Sir J Hastings (Otley) Healy, Maurice (Cork City)
Healy, Timothy M. (Cork, N.E.) Molley, Michael Scanlan, Thomas
Hearn, Michael L. (Dublin, S.) Molteno, Percy Alport Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Helme, Sir Norval Watson Morrell, Philip Sheehy, David
Hill, Sir James (Bradford, C.) Muldoon, John Smallwood, Edward
Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. H. Nolan, Joseph Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)
Hogge, J. M. Nugent, J. D. (College Green) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
John, Edward Thomas Nuttall, Harry Snowden, Philip
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) O'Brien, William (Cork) Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Rushcliffe) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Sutherland, John E.
Jones, Wm. Kennedy (Hornsey) O'Doherty, Philip Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Jowett, Frederick William O'Donnell, Thomas Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John
Joyce, Michael O'Dowd, John Thomas, Sir G. (Monmouth. S.)
Keating, Matthew Ogden, Fred Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Kelly, Edward O'Grady, James Tootill, Robert
Kennedy, Vincent Paul O'Leary, Daniel Walters, Sir John Tudor
Kiley, James Daniel O'Malley, William Webb, Lieut.-Col. Sir Henry
King, Joseph O'Shaughnessy, P. J. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Lambert, Richard (Cricklade) O'Shee, James John Whitehouse, John Howard
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) O'Sullivan, Timothy Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Outhwaite, R. L Whitty, Patrick Joseph
London, Thomas Pearce, Sir Robert (Leek) Wilkie, Alexander
M'Callum, Sir John M. Ponsonby, Arthur A W. H. Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Falkirk) Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Words., N.)
M'Ghee, Richard Raffan, Peter Wilson Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah Rea, Walter Russell Wing, Thomas Edward
Maden, Sir John Henry Redmond, Capt. W. A. Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
Marshall, Arthur Harold Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham) Yeo, Sir Alfred William
Mason, David M. (Coventry) Robertson, Rt. Hon. J. M. Young, William (Perth, East)
Mcagher, Michael Roch, Walter F. Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Rowlands, James
Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co.) Rowntree, Arnold TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Holt and Mr. Sherwell.
Millar, James Duncan Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Gretton, John
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Clyde, James Avon Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis Jones
Agnew, Sir George Coates, Major Sir Edward F. Haddock, George Bahr
Anstruther-Gray, Lt.-Col. Wm. Coats, Sir Stuart (Wimbledon) Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)
Archdale, Lt. Edward M. Colvin, Col. Hall, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)
Archer-Shee, Lt.-Col. Martin Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J Hamersley, Lt.-Col. A. St. George
Astor, Major Hon Waldorf Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole Hamilton, C. G. C. (Altrincham)
Baker, Maj. Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) Coote, William (Tyrone, S.) Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J.
Baldwin, Stanley Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence (Ashford)
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives) Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N. Cory, James H. (Cardiff) Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds)
Barnett, Capt. Richard W. Cowan, Sir William Henry Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)
Barnston, Maj. Harry Craig, Ernest (Crowe) Harris, Rt. Hon. F. L. (Worcester, E.)
Barrie, H. T. Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, E.) Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)
Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Glouc. E.) Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Haslam, Lewis
Beach, William F. H. Croft, Brig.-Gen. Henry Page Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Dalrymple, Hon. H. H Henry, Sir Charles (Shropshire)
Beck, Arthur Cecil Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Hewins, William Albert S.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Denison-Pender, Capt. J. Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.
Benn, Arthur S. (Plymouth) Denniss, Edmund R Bartley Hills, John Waller (Durham)
Bentinck, Lord Henry Dixon, Charles Harvey Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Bigland, Alfred Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Bird, Alfred Du Pre, Major W. Baring Hope, Harry (Bute)
Blair, Reginald Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Boles, Lt.-Col. Fortescue Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Mid.) Hope, John Deans (Haddington)
Booth, Frederick Handel Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith- Faber, George D. (Clapham) Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis
Boyle, William L. (Norfolk, Mid.) Faber, Col. W. V. (Hants, W.) Hunt, Major Rowland
Boyton, Sir James Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray Hunter. Maj. Sir Chas. Rodk.
Brace, Rt. Hon. William Fell, Sir Arthur Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.
Brassey, H. L. C. Fiennes, Hon. Sir Eustace E. Ingleby, Holcombe
Bridgeman, William Clive Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam) Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)
Brookes, Warwick Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham) Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)
Broughton, Urban Hanlon FitzRoy, Hon. Edward A. Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Bull, Sir William James Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.)
Burdett-Coutts, William Fletcher, John S. Jones, Wm. S. Glyn- (Stepney)
Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay) Forster, Rt. Hon. Henry William Joynson-Hicks, William
Butcher, J. G. Foster, Philip Staveley Kellaway, Frederick George
Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton) Gardner, Ernest Kerry, Lieut.-Col., Earl of
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Gastrell, Lt.-Col. Sir W. H. Keswick, Henry
Carnegie, Lt.-Col. Douglas G. Geddes, Sir A. C. (Hants, North) Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Gibbs, Col. George Abraham Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford
Cator, John Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Molton, S.)
Cautley, Henry Strother Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred Larmor, Sir Joseph
Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George Grant, James Augustus Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)
Cecil, Rt Hon. Lord Hugh (Oxford U.) Greene, Walter Raymond Levy, Sir Maurice
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin) Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland) Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert
Cheyne, Sir William W. Greig, Colonel James William Lindsay, William Arthur
Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.) Parker, Rt. Hon. Sir G (Gravesend) Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, W.)
Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) Parker, James (Halifax) Sykes, Col. Sir A. J. Knutsford)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) Parkes, Sir Edward Sykes, Col. Sir Mark (Hull, Central)
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse) Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)
Lonsdale, James R. Pease, Rt. Hon. H. P. (Darlington) Thomas-Stanford, Chas, (Brighton)
Lowe, Sir F. W. Pennefather, De Fonblanque Tickler, Thomas George
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Perkins, Walter Frank Tryon, Capt. George Clement
MaCalmont, Brig.-Gen. R. C.A. Peto, Basil Edward Turton, Edmund Russborough
MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh Philipps, Maj-Gen. Sir Ivor Walker, Col. W. H.
Mackinder, Halford J. Philipps. Sir Owen (Chester) Walsh, Stephen (Lancashire, Ince)
Macleod, John M. Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G. Ward, A. s. (Herts, Watford)
Macmaster, Donald Prothero, Rt. Hon. Roland Edmund Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
McMicking, Major Gilbert Pryce-Jones, Col. E. Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Quitter, Major Sir Cuthbert Waring, Major Walter
McNeill, R. (Kent, St. Augustine's) Randles, Sir John Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.
Macpherson, James Ian Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Magnus, Sir Philip Rawson, Col. Richard H. Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Malcolm, Ian Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) Watson, Hon. W. (Lanark, S.)
Marriott, John A. R. Robinson, Sidney Weigall, Lt.-Col. W. E. G. A.
Mason, James F. (Windsor) Rothschild, Major Lionel de Weston, John W.
Meux, Admiral Hon. Sir Hedworth Royds, Major Edmund Whiteley, Sir H. J. (Droitwich)
Meysey-Thompson, col. E. C. Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen) Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)
Middlemore, John Throgmorton Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (N'wood) Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud
Mitchell-Thomson, W. Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (York)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz Sharman-Crawford, Col. R. G Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth)
Money, Sir L. G. Chiozza Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Liverpool) Winfrey, Sir R.
Morgan, George Hay Spear. Sir John Ward Wolmer, Viscount
Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness) Stanier, Capt. Sir Beville Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Morrison-Bell, Colonel E. (Ashburton) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Aston) Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)
Morton, Sir Alpheus Cleophas Starkey, John Ralph Worthington Evans, Major Sir L.
Neville, Reginald J. N. Staveley-Hill, Lt.-Col. Henry Wright, Henry Fitzherbert
Newman, Major John R, P. Stewart, Gershem Younger, Sir George
Nicholson, Wm. G (Petersfield) Stoker, Robert B.
Norton-Griffiths, Sir John Stirling, Lt.-Col. Archibald TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord Edmund Talbot and Capt. F. Guest.
Orde-Pewlett, Hon. W. G. A. Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)
Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Subsequent word "and" left out.


I beg to move, in the proposed Clause, to leave out the words "the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next," and to insert instead thereof the words "four teen days."

The Address must, therefore, be presented within fourteen days after the Order has been laid before Parliament.


I should like to ask the Home Secretary what would happen if the House did not sit during the fourteendays? Ought not the words "on which that House has sat" be left in?


The Amendment would mean that the Order would remain for fourteen days when the House was sitting.


We must look at the possibility that the Order might be laid on the Table of the House on the eve of the Adjournment of the House, when there might be no effective opportunity of the discussion of this Regulation. That is an eventuality for which we must allow. Sup posing the Government were, I do not say by desire, driven by circumstances to introduce and to lay on the Table of the House Regulations on the eve of Adjournment, it might so happen that this House would never have one moment's opportunity for debate.


The words of the next Amendment, I think, cover that.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: Leave out the words "Regulation or" (three times).

Clause, as amended, ordered to be added to the Bill.


The next pro posed new Clause, standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) [Orders in Council], has been covered by the provision already made. I think the same also refers to the next Amendments on the Paper. I call upon the Home Secretary.