Lords Sitting of 17 January 1918

WILLS (SOLDIERS AND SAILORS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY): I am going to ask your Lordships to postpone this Bill until Thursday of next week, and as the occasion for the postponement is of some importance I propose to say a few words in explanation. The Bill before you is based on the view that, in the case of a will of personal property made by a soldier on active service or by a sailor at sea, the will is good although the testator is under age; is under twenty-one. That view has prevailed ever since the Act of 1837 was passed, and certainly at least since the year 1846, when the matter came before Sir H. Jenner Fust, a very well-known Judge. It was the case of the will of a minor who was killed in India at the battle of Aliwal in 1846. Application was made for probate of his will to Sir H. Jenner Fust, sitting in the Prerogative Court.
The circumstances were that the deceased, a cornet in the eleventh regiment of Bengal Light Cavalry, died a bachelor and a minor on January 28, 1846, being mortally wounded at the battle of Aliwal in the East Indies. He wrote a will in pencil (which the surgeon alone attested) on the field of battle. Sir H. Jenner Fust said—
"This is the first case of the will of a minor dying on the field of battle. The question is whether it is a good and valid will. Under the general provisions of the Act it is not; but under the eleventh clause it would be valid whether the deceased were major or not—'any soldier, being in actual military service, may dispose of his personal estate as he might have done before the making of this Act.' Then, as he might make such a will according to the Statute of Frauds, and even a nuncupative will, and whether major or minor, according to this clause, this is a good and valid will."
And that administration was given.
This view was expressed in 1846, and has been constantly acted upon ever since in dealing with these military wills. Since this Bill was before your Lordships, earlier in this very week, a decision has been given by Mr. Justice Younger, in a case in which, although the point did not arise for decision because the learned Judge said probate had
738
been granted and he was bound by the probate, he expressed the opinion that the point whether the view of the law taken by Sir H. Jenner Fust was correct might require further consideration. As this Bill is drawn on the assumption that Sir H. Jenner Fust's view of the practice pursued since was correct, it is desirable that it should be considered whether the point should not be cleared up. Mr. Justice Younger has been good enough to communicate with me, both in writing and by interview, and he thinks the point should be cleared up. A great many wills have-been made by minors relying on the universal understanding that the law was as Sir H. Jenner Fust pronounced it in 1846, and it would be extremely unfortunate if it turned out that every one had been wrong on this assumption. Accordingly I think it is right that we should consider whether the present opportunity should be taken for dealing, in some form, with the point as to whether the question cannot be effectively cleared up. It would be unfortunate if there were any doubt upon it, and I therefore ask your Lordships to adjourn the Bill for further consideration until this day week.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I was so horrified and astonished when I read the decision that appeared in the newspapers yesterday morning that I instantly rushed into print, and I trust the Lord Chancellor did not think I was disrespectful towards him in doing so. The Bill was down for Third Reading to-day, and there was too great a pressure of business last night for me to speak to him on the subject, but I thought he would not consider it discourteous of me to put down an Amendment to the Bill dealing with this point. Nothing could be more astonishing than that the decision which has been acted upon for seventy years should now be in doubt, and I do not think myself there is very much difficulty in declaring the law. I ventured to put down words which seem to me to do it quite simply and plainly, but, undoubtedly, they require careful consideration. I am very glad to hear that the Lord Chancellor is postponing the consideration of the Bill, because it means that this will be done in the most complete and careful way, and I believe the delay will have the effect of expediting the Bill, because when it goes to the House of Commons there will be the same feeling there that this is a point which ought to be dealt with at once.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I have made an examination of some of the Statutes on which the judgment of Mr. Justice Younger was based, and, without saying more on the subject, I can assure your Lordships that very great weight must be attached to his interpretation. I should like cordially to support the postponement of the Bill, on the ground that it will give an opportunity to make quite clear what would otherwise be only a cause of lengthy and costly litigation.
Third Heading postponed until Thursday next.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
Order of the Day read for the House to be again in Committee.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Peel.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Upon this Question, I believe that it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if the noble Viscount who is leading the House can state what the arrangement of business will be next week in connection with this Bill.
VISCOUNT MILNER: There has been some conversation on both sides of the House in order to elicit what would be the greatest convenience of Members in this matter. I had an opportunity yesterday of speaking with the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, who I do not see in his place at this moment. What we propose is that there should be no sitting to-morrow. We rather hope that we may make considerable progress with the Bill to-night, and perhaps reach the clause dealing with proportional representation, so that we might start on that subject when the House resumes next week. It is possible that we may have time to discuss it tonight, and I do not wish to exclude that. Our strong hope is that we may at any rate get over the ground up to that point this evening.
With regard to next week the proposal is that the House should meet at 4.30 and sit after dinner, with a moderate interval, beginning on Monday, and so on until we get through. It may be necessary, but I hope it will not, to sit on Friday of next week. We shall sit from 4.30 onwards,
740
with a moderate adjournment for dinner, on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, if it is necessary to sit so long, in order to get through.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Will the noble Viscount make it possible for the Refreshment Department to cater for those who find it inconvenient to go from the House to their home? In present circumstances it is very difficult for Peers to get home and come back here.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: May I say, as a member of the Kitchen Committee—I do not know whether there is any other member present who would rather speak—that it is under existing conditions very difficult to make arrangements of a satisfactory character in the Catering Department, and the probabilities are that the amount of food available next week will not be much. I thought that it would probably be convenient for the House to know that this is the case.
LORD LAMINGTON: Could we not ask to be allowed to dine in the House of Commons?
VISCOUNT MILNER: I know that there is a difficulty in the matter and we are doing our best to improve the arrangements, though I cannot give any positive promise of success. I hope that the noble Earl opposite will understand that we realise the difficulty, and will do our best to remove it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House again in Committee.
[The EARL of KINTORE in the Chair]
Clause 8:
Provision as to disqualifications.
8.—(1) A person shall not be disqualified from being registered or from voting as a Parliamentary or local government elector by reason that he or some person for whose maintenance he is responsible has received poor relief or other alms.
(2) Any person who has been exempted from all military service (including non-combatant service) on the ground of conscientious objection, or who, having been convicted by court-martial of an offence against military law, and having represented that the offence was the result of conscientious objection to military service, has been awarded imprisonment in lieu of detention, shall be disqualified during the continuance of the war and a period of five years thereafter from being, registered or voting as a Parliamentary or local government elector.
Provided that this disqualification shall not apply to any person who, within one year after the termination of the war, proves to the central tribunal, as established for the purpose of the Military Service Act, 1916, that he had during the continuance of the war taken up either—

(1) service as a member of any of the naval or military forces of the Crown on full pay; or

(2) service in connection with the war of a naval or military character for which payment is made out of money provided by Parliament; or

(3) service afloat or abroad in connection with the war in any work of the British Red Gross Society, or the Order of St John of Jerusalem in England, or any other body with a similar object; or

(4) that having been exempted from military service on condition of doing work of national importance, he has done such work in accordance with the decision and to the satisfaction of the appropriate tribunal or authority;

and obtains a certificate from the tribunal to that effect:
Provided also that no woman shall be disqualified from being registered or voting as a Parliamentary or local government elector by reason of any disqualification imposed upon her husband by this section.
The central tribunal established under the Military Service Act, 1916, shall be continued for the purpose of this provision for a period of a year after the termination of the present war.
(3) A person shall not be entitled to be registered or to vote as a Parliamentary or local government elector if he is not a British subject, and nothing contained in this Act shall, except as expressly provided therein, confer on any person who is subject to any legal incapacity to be registered or to vote either as a Parliamentary or local government elector any right to be so registered or to vote.
(4) A person shall not be disqualified from voting at any election as a Parliamentary or local government elector by reason that he is legally employed for payment by or on behalf of a candidate at any Parliamentary or local government election.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I should like to ask, on a point of order, whether the noble Earl in the Chair has anything he can state to the Committee on the matter brought forward yesterday by the most rev. Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, as to the possibility of postponing this clause.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The rate of progress in regard to this Bill was, I think, the reason which prompted the most rev. Primate to put a question to the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill last evening on the point of procedure. I recognise that our progress is slow, but it has, I think, to
742
be remembered that this is a very big and a very complex Bill, which represents an endeavour to attain several legislative projects at one time in one Bill. In regard to the point of procedure, I regret exceedingly that it falls to one who is merely an understudy in this Chair to deal with it. How ever, as that is the case, I will only say that while on the one hand I cannot call to mind any occasion since I entered this House in 1880 upon which the suggested procedure has been adopted, on the other hand I find on your Lordships' Table a book printed in 1876, entitled "A Companion to Standing Orders of the House of Lords" which at page 120 reads as follows—
"Clauses of a Bill are proceeded with in Committee seriatim, and when a clause has been disposed of the consideration of it cannot be resumed during the sitting of the Committee. It is allowable, however, that the Committee should, upon Motion, postpone clauses, and that they should be taken up at a subsequent part of the sitting of the Committee, or at a subsequent day of such Committee."
May I add that I think our proceedings last evening seemed to lend some force to the desirability of such being found possible on occasion; and if your Lordships should so desire, I would be glad to look into the matter further and report to your Lordships.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think there is no doubt that your Lordships last night would have liked to take the course of postponing the clause. The difficulty which arises is not in regard to the question of postponement. There is no doubt that in either House of Parliament a clause can be postponed. The question is whether it can be postponed after consideration of the clause has been entered upon. Speaking as a humble member of your Lordships' House, I think that it would be very convenient if we were allowed to postpone the clause, even though we have entered upon it, in order that there should be further time for consideration. I do not know, however, that the matter arises now. Expressing my own opinion, I hope that the Lord Chairman will look into the matter further, so that he may be able to inform the House when the occasion arises.
LORD PARMOOR: There is no reason why a Motion should not be made that the further consideration of a particular clause should be postponed. That would be an ordinary Motion to make, if any one desired to make it. In certain circumstances

743
it might be a matter of great convenience, because it would allow the Government to consider suggestions made and might save a great deal of time.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not know whether I might say a word with great respect regarding what the Lord Chairman has said. The clause as it is now might lead to some inconvenience. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House, speaking just now, suggested that he did not wish to enter, as I understood him, upon the discussion of proportional representation until Monday. I hoped that we might start this afternoon on that matter; certainly if you postpone this clause now you will be bound to enter upon the discussion of proportional representation, because there are not many Amendments between us and that discussion.
I should like to make two suggestions. After this clause has been re-drafted to try and meet the wishes of the House as far as they have been indicated, the Government would be responsible for the clause. What the Government would do would be to try and carry out the indicated wishes of the House and re-draft the clause in that sense for them. One course would be for me to produce the clause re-drafted, and move it pro forma; then if noble Lords wished, they could easily move their Amendments on the Report Stage, because it is so drawn that Amendments can be easily moved. The other suggestion is for the Committee to say whether they would like to finish the discussion on this clause now. It might not take very long. The Government would then be fully seized with the intention of the House upon the clause, and would be able to bring up a clause redrafted on Report expressing what had been substantially decided by the Committee.
LORD BUCKMASTER: When your Lordships adjourned last night you were discussing an Amendment moved by myself on behalf of Lord Gainford, to omit from subsection (2) the words "who has been exempted from all military service (including non-combatant service) on the ground of conscientious objection or." As my Amendment, therefore, is being discussed, perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words. I trust that your Lordships will not postpone now the discussion of this clause. The matter has been very
744
fully debated, and if I may tell your Lordships the course I propose to follow I think you will see that it is designed to save time. I propose, with the permission of your Lordships, to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, which was the subject of discussion, and in its place to move an Amendment which stands in my name a little lower down on the Paper, which deals with the same question in, I think, a better from. I do not propose to repeat the arguments that I have used already. I shall say a very few words indeed on the new Amendment which stands in my name, and I trust I shall take only a few minutes in adding to what I have already said. This seems to me to be the shortest and the best method.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved to add, after "represented" in subsection (2), the words "or having previously pleaded conscientious objection to military service has not denied." The noble Earl said: We had a very lengthy discussion on the question of the conscientious objectors last night, and there was a strong expression of opinion from those who were practically in favour of allowing conscientious objectors to vote, whereas those who took a different view—a view which, I believe, finds great favour in the country—were very nearly silent. The Amendment I have placed on the Paper, will, I think, have the effect of cutting out those people from voting whom this House desires to prevent from voting. I understand that, owing to the procedure of our Courts, it would be quite easy for a conscientious objector, by taking certain action, if tried for the offence with which he is charged, to get put on the Register in spite of the Bill. I think, therefore, that the addition of some such words as these is absolutely imperative.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 39, after ("represented") insert ("or having previously pleaded conscientious objections to military service has not denied").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I only have to state what may be the effect of this Amendment. The noble Earl rather judiciously did not dwell on the exact form of his Amendment. The words are, "or having previously pleaded conscientious objection to military service has not denied." It appears to be rather a strong order to infer from a man's dumbness that he does not plead in a certain way; and this is really the net

745
effect of the Amendment. Moreover, the noble Earl does not cover also another class who have appeared before a Tribunal, who go to service, and then are Court-martialled, and may be conscientious objectors, but, anyhow, do not say anything to lead the Tribunal to think so. Those cases would not be met by the noble Earl's Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: It seems to be rather hard, when it is represented by the Court-Martial that the offence is the result of conscientious objection to military service, that you should disqualify the man merely because he did not deny it. It might very well be that a man merely takes his punishment silently. He may have been convicted by Court-Martial of an offence against military law and simply not have denied that the offence was the result of conscientious objection; in other words, he raises no defence at all. Is it right for a man of that kind to be disfranchised?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I can only say, in reply to that, that I consider that a man can get off. As the noble Viscount (Lord Peel) has stated, if any man refused to plead and stands mute he will remain on the Register.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to omit from subsection (2) the words "in lieu of" ["imprisonment in lieu of detention"] and to substitute "or." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is to meet a point which was raised in another place, that in certain cases the conscientious objector might be in the first instance imprisoned, yet not imprisoned "in lieu of" detention. Of course, there are two forms of punishment, one the military form of detention, the other the civil one of imprisonment; and this Amendment simply makes the disqualification the same for both classes.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, lines 1 and 2, leave out ("in lieu of") and insert ("or").—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD PARMOOR: I must point out that this makes a very substantial difference. The noble Viscount may be right in what he said, if he desires to extend the operation of the disqualifying clause, but the conscientious objector who has been awarded imprisonment in lieu of detention is a specific person who has taken advantage
746
of what was granted—I quoted Lord Kitchener's words the other night—by the War Council, namely, that he was entitled to come under civil as against military imprisonment. That is how the Bill stands at present. I do not know how far the Amendment extends the disqualification; it may extend it very considerably.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I can assure my noble and learned friend that it will make no difference, for there are no sentences of detention given now in respect of these conscientious objectors, because by a general direction of the War Office these sentences are always imprisonment in cases of conscientious objection. They have not technically the right to order a Court-Martial, but it has been observed that the expression of an opinion by the War Office generally governs the conduct of the Courts-Martial in matters of that kind. Therefore it does not occur. It did occur in early cases. But these sentences of detention are long expired, and I think we need not have regard to them.
LORD PARMOOR: If the noble Marquess is right, I take it he thinks the Amendment is unnecessary.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think it is. But it will not do any harm.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON moved to omit from subsection (2) the words "and a period of five years thereafter." The noble Lord said: The reason why I move this Amendment is that I think such a condition would be entirely inoperative. I do not see how it would be carried into practical effect. I know that a noble Earl has an Amendment to meet the difficulty by having a black list of names of people, But how will any registration official, with about 16,000,000 electors on the roll, be able to distinguish Tom Smith out of about 200 or 300 Tom Smiths and to identify him as a conscientious objector? I am entirely out of sympathy with the conscientious objectors, but I do not think we should try to carry on a vindictive campaign. I do not know whether the noble Viscount will tell us that he has some machinery in contemplation for the purpose of identifying these people.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 3, leave out ("and a period of five years thereafter").—(Lord Lamington.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: All I have to point out on this Amendment is that it is practically a Second Reading objection to the whole Clause. It would raise the whole subject of discussion which we have already had. Unless these words are kept in, it is obvious that if a General Election does not take place until the war is over the clause would be entirely inoperative.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER moved, at the beginning of the proviso in subsection (2), after the words "Provided that this disqualification shall not apply to any person who," to insert "has received unconditional exemption or who." The noble and learned Lord said: I am conscious of the indulgent consideration which your Lordships gave last night to the general question of conscientious objectors, and I do not propose now to repeat any of the arguments which have been placed before the House already. This Amendment has been put down for the purpose of making clear what it was that was intended to be covered by the Amendment which originally stood in the name of Lord Gainford. The Amendment provides that a man who has been given absolute and complete exemption without any condition whatever being imposed upon him, shall not be disfranchised; and the reason for it is to be found in the structure of the clause itself. The clause as it is brought forward by the Government is one which provides that if a man has exemption upon conditions and satisfies those conditions he is not to be disfranchised. If, therefore, there are no conditions imposed, I submit that it necessarily follows that the man is not within the spirit of this clause at all. He has disobeyed nothing. He has not been recalcitrant or obstructive in any sense; he has come before the Tribunal with a definite objection which has been accepted. Surely it would be a very strange thing if a man whose sincerity was doubted and who had conditions imposed upon him for the purpose of testing his sincerity and who satisfied those conditions then received the vote, but that a man who was exempted without any conditions at all being imposed should be excluded from the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 7, after ("who") insert ("has received unconditional exemption or who").—(Lord Buckmaster.)
LORD GAINFORD: I was unfortunately not able to be present yesterday when the Amendment standing in my name on the Paper was reached. I put down my Amendment with the intention of carrying out what I believed to be the intention of the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, when he expressed his view in the following words—
"who has satisfied the Tribunal and has obtained absolute and unconditional exemption without any question arising of his liability to perform national service, and the man who did not satisfy the Tribunal and who did not receive unconditional exemption."
I have no sympathy for a large number of conscientious objectors who have not satisfied the Tribunals that they are genuine conscientious objectors and been given conditional exemption. I am not going to refer to them. I want to refer to the comparatively few who, at the commencement of the operation of the Military Service Act, did secure total exemption. Most of these people are either Quakers or of Quaker descent. They are people who are not prepared to come before any Tribunal in this country in order to try to prove that, subsequent to their having received exemption, they have been doing work of national importance. I know of my own knowledge that many of them have been doing such work. Several of them have lost their lives in doing work of national importance; and many of them are doing work of a philanthropic character, which they keep to themselves. They do it in what is called their leisure time. They work in the slums, among the children in school-play centres, and so on. These people have received total exemption. However much we may differ from them, we must remember that their main reason in asking for unconditional exemption was that they rendered perhaps too literally the Sixth Commandment. I think these people are entitled to our respect, and ought not to be marked individuals prevented from exercising their rights as citizens. Many of them are under the influence of their wives, but under the provisions of this Bill those wives will remain voters. I do not see why you should exclude a man because he happens to be of military age, and yet allow women, who are really conscientious objectors also, to have the vote;

749
or why you should allow men who are over forty-two and who are conscientious objectors to exercise the vote. The words of my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster fully meet the points I should have raised yesterday, and I trust that your Lordships will accept his Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not rise to speak on behalf of the Government but merely as an individual, because, as your Lordships are aware, this matter is left to the House. Some complaint has been made about the slowness of our progress, but we cannot get on very fast if points that have already been discussed at some length are dealt with over again. This Amendment really deals with the point which was disposed of yesterday.
LORD BUCKMASTER: No.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes it does; because yesterday we were dealing with the question whether it was right that a man who declined, even on most conscientious grounds, to perform a necessary national service—that of national defence—should be allowed to take part in the government of the nation. The House decided adversely to the conscientious objector on that question by a considerable majority. The conscientious objector might either be one who was let off without any condition or who was let off on the terms of doing national service. As drawn, proviso (4) gave an opening for escape only to the man who had been let off on condition, because it did not provide for the man who had been let off without any condition at all getting out of it by doing national service and thereby purging himself (so to speak) of the lack of necessary duty to the country in the matter of national defence.
The difficulty, such as it is, will be adequately met by amending proviso (4)—give every man who has been exempted from military service the right to get clear of that disability as to voting by performing national service; and if he satisfies the Central Tribunal that he has undertaken national service and has done it worthily, let them have the power to exempt him. To exempt these who have been let off military service on the ground of conscientious objection without any condition is really abandoning altogether the principle upon which I thought your Lordships pro-
750
ceeded yesterday in the vote which was taken. The vote was not one merely with regard to persons who were let off on condition; it was on the question whether it was right that people who would not serve in the field should take part in the government of the country. That question having been decided, we are now asked to exempt the whole class of those who were entirely let off military service simply on the ground that no condition of national service was imposed.
The clause as drawn is open to the gravest objection, because while the man upon whom a condition is imposed has an opportunity of purging, as you may call it, his contempt, by doing national service, no such opportunity is given, as the clause stands at present, to the man who is let off unconditionally. I think that is absurd, but it is an observation upon the drafting of the clause. The whole thing may be set right by altering proviso (4), so that it applies to the man who is let off unconditionally; that is to say, allow him to perform national service, and, on his showing that he has done it satisfactorily, let him get the same exemption from disqualification as is given to the man who is let off conditionally. On this ground, speaking for myself personally, I could not support the Amendment, which seems to be calculated to a great extent to reverse the conclusion to which the Committee came yesterday.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I do not think that some of us, who feel very strongly on this point, can consent to be muzzled on a question of vital importance to liberty, justice, and good faith by the complaint that we are debating the question over and over again. As a matter of fact, we are not debating the question over again. Yesterday the important debate turned upon the excision of the whole subsection, and the recognition of absolute freedom from penalties of all people who had conscientious objections. No doubt the clause was criticised, and it was pointed out that there was great absurdity in placing people who had taken advantage of the Statute and had been given unconditional exemption in a worse position than people who had taken advantage of the Statute and had had specific conditions put upon them. But that was only an incident, and I do not care to discuss it now, because

751
we understand that the clause is going to be re-drafted and we shall have an opportunity of discussing it on Report, when I shall reserve to myself the fullest liberty of vindicating the principles of common justice and good-faith.
LORD PARMOOR: I should like to add a word or two with reference to what was said by the Lord Chancellor. I entirely agree with what he said so far as the effect of the clause as at present drafted is concerned. It means this, that a man who had a right conferred upon him by Parliament and was found by the Tribunal entitled to that right becomes disqualified. There is no question about that as the clause stands. I did not understand that the Division which took place yesterday was intended to confirm a proposition of that character. Of course, it is an entirely different position when a man gets a conditional exemption. The question does then arise whether he has complied with that condition or not. That is a very proper matter for consideration. But supposing he has got unconditional exemption? How do considerations of that kind then arise at all? If I may put it to Lord Gainford, the Amendment of Lord Buckmaster would have exactly the same effect as his own Amendment would have, and the effect of his own Amendment was this—that where a man has had a right conferred upon him, and has been given that right unconditionally, you ought not to impose the penalty of disqualification upon him. That is the effect of Lord Gainford's original Amendment; and are we to take it that this House has come to this conclusion, that where a man has acted in conformity with legislative enactment passed quite lately, and does what that legislative enactment tells him to do, this disqualifies him from using his ordinary rights of citizenship? I hope Lord Buckmaster will press his Amendment to a Division, and let us see whether the House is prepared to accept a principle of that kind, as stated by the Lord Chancellor. Of course there is not the slightest doubt what is the principle. He says that a law-abiding citizen who has done nothing but what he has been told he might do should be deprived of certain rights of citizenship. I hope Lord Buckmaster will press his Amendment in order to see whether this House is prepared to establish such a terrible principle as I think that would be.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am very reluctant to intervene, but before I give a vote on this question I want clearly to understand what it is that I am asked to do. According to the plain reading of this proviso it seems to me absolutely to undo the whole effect of the subsection. If you are going to disqualify from voting any one who has received exemption, surely that is the very person who has been exempted from all military service, including non-combatant service. Yet you are going to undo by the proviso the whole main provision upon which we voted yesterday.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not know whether the noble Lord addressed that question to me, because of course, as I stated yesterday the first main proviso on which we voted embraced two classes, those who were unconditionally exempted by the Tribunals and those who were exempted on condition of doing work of national service. If Lord Buckmaster's Amendment is carried, it will mean that you exempt from disqualification one-half of those persons—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No. A very small fraction indeed.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am not speaking of numbers, but of one class; whereas others who have been exempted upon the condition of doing something must get rid of the disqualification by showing that they have done work of national importance.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I assure the Committee that the number of persons concerned in this controversy is really very small, having regard to the intimation of the Government that they intend to allow those unconditionally exempted to show that they have been doing work of national importance. The number of absolute exemptions, to start with, is very small, and of those a great number are those spoken of by Lord Gainford—persons of Quaker descent or actual Quakers, very small in number and living in particular parts of England. Apart from them, there are a number of persons who were very nearly ministers of religion and were therefore exempted under the Military Service Act. There are a number of such persons—lay preachers or students of religion—and those are the persons to whom absolute exemption has been granted. All such persons as these would come in under the exemption proposals which the

753
Government are going to insert. They would be able to plead before the Tribunal that they were doing work of national importance. If they showed that they were engaged in preaching religion, that would certainly be accepted as work of national importance by the Tribunal. Is that denied?
LORD PARMOOR: We could not tell.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think we may draw that reasonable inference from common sense principles, and therefore as a matter of fact the number of persons involved in this controversy is very small. Speaking for myself, I should have much preferred to see the clause in the form in which the Government intend ultimately to move it before we discuss it. Some of your Lordships do not agree with that view. Of course, you are much better judges of that than I am, but I should have much preferred it, and I should have thought it would have been the better way to proceed.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: As I understand the Amendment of the noble and learned lord (Lord Buckmaster), those who have been absolutely exempted from military service are exempted from that military service not as cranks but as holding peculiar and definitely held opinions. Is that right?
LORD BUCKMASTER: Yes.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: I quite understand persons saying that they do not want this country governed by cranks; but then a difficulty arises in my mind, particularly after what we have heard from Lord Gainford just now. Can you say that men are cranks who hold peculiar opinions, those opinions being based on the Sixth Commandment given out on the Table of Stone? I do not know. If they are not cranks, why should you disqualify them if they received exemption? They are given exemption on opinions, and I personally stand up still for freedom of opinion if that opinion is genuine.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: I desire to put a point to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. I do so with diffidence, because the whole matter is so much befogged and it is desirable to know where
754
we stand. I understand him to say that a person who had received unconditional exemption from the Tribunal would be able to purge himself, as he expressed it, from the disqualification by doing work—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not as the clause stands, but proviso (4) should in my individual opinion be amended so as to give him the option of doing work of national importance and thus getting rid of the disqualification.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: That clears the matter a little, but it does not altogether meet my point, which is this. Suppose a person should get unconditional exemption, do I understand that the Lord Chancellor thinks that relief should be given to him only if now—after the passing of the Act, he having supposed up to now that he would obtain his rights as a citizen—he goes and does work of national importance? I would like to put a case. The persons affected may be few, but justice should be done even to the fewest. The question of numbers does not seem to me, with all respect to what was said by the noble Marquess, to affect the principle of justice. The case is one of a man who received unconditional exemption and thereupon thought he was safe. He did not think anything further would happen to him, but now he is to be deprived of the right of the franchise. Suppose that that man after he has received exemption finds it impossible to do the work of national importance. He might have been attacked by illness, or there might have been other causes which prevented him from doing it. Has he to go now and establish the fact of his illness or the fact of any other causes which prevented him from doing the work of national importance? Would it not be more simple to treat the case of a man who received unqualified exemption as the case of a man who has a vested right, and not go further into the matter? At any rate, if it is felt that this is a question which cannot be dealt with now, I would respectfully submit to those who will draft the new clause that they should have regard to a case of that kind. We do not want any class to be dealt with unjustly, even if that class consists of a small minority.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: If the noble and learned Lord goes to a Division I feel I cannot do otherwise than

755
vote with him, because I remain unconvinced by the arguments on the other side. I feel that there is a good deal to be said for the view which found favour with my noble friend on the Back Benches, Lord Sheffield, and I think also with Lord Salisbury, when it was suggested that as His Majesty's Government intend to redraft this clause we may reserve our judgment until we have seen it. As the matter now stands, I cannot get away from what seems to me to be the bedrock facts of the case. Here you have these people who have been excused without any conditions. We made it easy for them to get excused without any conditions. We now impose a condition upon them, and we say that if they fail to comply with this condition we shall disfranchise them. We talk of giving them an opportunity of purging their offence, but the point is that they have not committed an offence. There is nothing of which they should purge themselves. It is interesting to note that the number of people concerned is not large, but, be it large or small, it seems to me that they have a strong case. However, I am quite content to wait for a while and see in what form His Majesty's Government bring up the clause for our consideration.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: The objection taken by the noble Viscount, Lord Bryce, shows that the supporters of this Amendment are slowly being driven from their position.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: Not at all.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: The objection he raises is one which can easily be met by an amendment of proviso (4) providing for any unavoidable incapacity or disablement. I wish to draw attention also to another fallacy. The whole of this case is being argued as if the conscientious objectors have been conferring favours upon us. It is said that all you ask them to do is to prove something before the Tribunal. I wish you to observe, my Lords, that up to that point the whole situation is the reverse. It is they who have received favours, and exemptions, and they stand at the end of it all in a highly privileged position. I wish you to understand that if you pass this Amendment—which I believe is to be persisted in and pushed to a Division—you will place the conscientious objector not in the position of receiving that which is his right, because the foundation of our objection is that he
756
has ceased to deserve that right; he has failed to earn it. He is—and may I recommend this to the consideration of the noble and learned Lord who spoke yesterday from the Cross-benches, Lord Parker—he is exactly in the position of a shareholder in an enterprise who has not paid his calls and still asks to be allowed to vote at the general meeting.
VISCOUNT MILNER: My Lords, may I be allowed to intervene for one moment? I do not wish to enter at all into the subject under discussion. As you know, it has been the decision of the Government to leave this matter entirely to the judgment of the House. The suggestion I am going to make is merely made in the interests of the House itself, and with the desire to clear the ground and, if possible, to avert wholly unnecessary discussion. The Government have promised to bring up a new clause to make this matter much clearer. They would like to be guided in drawing up that clause by a distinct decision of the House on one point only. Everything else seems to be perfectly clear, but there is one point on which there is still a difference of opinion.
I will try to put it quite clearly, as I understand it. Perhaps I am wrong, and in that case the noble and learned Lord opposite will correct me. I think what he wishes is that it should be made quite clear that those conscientious objectors who have obtained unconditional exemption shall not under any circumstances be deprived of their qualification as voters by this Bill. He would not be satisfied—and there are a number of noble Lords who would not be satisfied—by a new clause to be introduced by the Government providing that such conscientious objectors might remove the disqualification by proving that they have done some act of national service. Now if he presses his Amendment to a Division—which I venture to suggest he should do for the convenience of the House—we shall be voting on that point, and on that point alone. Those who support the noble and learned Lord will be indicating that it is their view that those persons who have got unconditional exemption should be entitled to vote whether they have done or have not done any act of national service subsequently. If we might take the Division now on that point, the Government will then be in a clear position in drawing up its Amendment to meet the views of your Lordships' House.
EARL RUSSELL: I should like to say a word or two on this point, because the form of words now before the House is the form which I myself suggested yesterday to the noble Viscount who is in charge of the Bill, and on which I did not have the advantage of receiving his comments. I think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has really allowed his prejudice against those who possess a different conscience rather to obscure his judicial qualities, because he began by telling your Lordships' House that this was a question on which we had already divided and had already voted. I need only refer the noble and learned Lord to what was said by the most rev. Primate, which I think showed that there were other questions to be considered on which members of your Lordships' House desired to express an opinion. What is being considered now will not be met by the addition to proviso (4) suggested by the noble Viscount yesterday. It comes to this—I think he will
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, at the beginning
not diagreee with me—you have a set of persons to whom the Tribunals have said, "You are unconditionally exempted; you have nothing more to do; you are free; you may go"; and the suggested addition to proviso (4) at this stage will now be putting upon them a new condition which was not placed upon them by the Tribunal; that is, before they can vote they must show to the Tribunal that they have done work of national importance. I think it is very important, in the interests of Parliamentary decency, that you should keep to your bargain with the public and to what is set up by Statute, and that you should not disfranchise people who have merely done exactly what the Act of Parliament said they might do.
On Question, whether the proposed words be here inserted—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 52.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Haldane, V.

Gainford, L. [Teller.]

Harcourt, V.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Crewe, M.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Parker of Waddington, L.

Salisbury, M.

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Parmoor, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

Camperdown, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Southwark, L

Eldon, E.

Carnock, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Halsbury, E.

Colchester, L.

Loreburn, E.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Stanmore, L.

Russell, E.

Emmott, L.

Sudeley, L.

Bryce, V.

Farrer, L.

Weardale, L.

Falkland, V.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Hylton, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.) (L. Privy Seal.)

Knutsford, V.

Islington, L.

Milner, V.

Kenyon, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Argyll, D.

Annesley, L.

Knaresborough, L.

Avebury, L.

Lambourne, L.

Ancaster, E.

Balfour, L.

Leith of Fyvie, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Beresford of Metemmeh, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.) [Teller.]

Grey, E.

Blyth, L.

Harewood, E.

Burnham, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Harrow by, E.

Charnwood, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Howe, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Ranksborough, L.

Lucan, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

St. Davids, L. [Teller.]

Mar and Kellie, E.

De Mauley, L.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Minto, E.

Desborough, L.

Saltoun, L.

Morton, E.

Digby, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Plymouth, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Selborne, E.

Forester, L.

Suffield, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Hindlip, L.

Sydenham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

of the proviso in subsection (2), to substitute "before the expiration of one year" for the words "within one year." The noble Viscount said: The proviso

759
will then read "Provided that this disqualification shall not apply to any person who, before the expiration of one year after the termination of the war, etc." That of course allows people to purge themselves before the Tribunal from the disqualification at the earliest possible moment, or at any time they like. As the Bill is drawn they will have to wait till the war has ended, and then in the first year after the ending of the war they would have to go before the Tribunal. This gives rather more liberty to them.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 7, leave out ("within") and insert ("before the expiration of").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, after the words "that he had during the continuance of the war taken up," to insert "and, so far as reasonably practicable, continued." The noble Viscount said: These words are to make sure that the work done has been reasonably done; otherwise as the words are drawn, it might appear that the man had only to be on for a few days. It is to assure the Tribunal.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 10, after ("up") insert ("and, so far as reasonably practicable, continued").—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD SHEFFIELD LORD SHEFFIELD: This Amendment would practically operate—with probably some Amendments that are coming later—to say that a man who had been totally exempted was only to be allowed to get his vote if during the whole of the full continuance of the war—that is, from the time he was exempted—he had Tendered service, unless he could show some reasonable cause to the contrary. It does not enable him, after this Bill is passed, to take up during the residue of the war public service, and so remove his disqualification. It is to be retrospective, and unless during the war he has done public service he would not get his vote. Is that the meaning of this Amendment?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know whether the question was addressed to me or to my noble friend Viscount Peel.
LORD SHEFFIELD: It was addressed to the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am sorry that I did not follow the noble Lord. There was a good deal of noise, I am sorry to say.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I do not want to have to make my point over again.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Is the noble Lord referring to the Amendment that I have just moved?
LORD SHEFFIELD: I am asking the effect of inserting after the word "war" the words "and, so far as reasonably practicable."
VISCOUNT PEEL: The words are, "and, so far as reasonably practicable, continued."
LORD SHEFFIELD: I would have much preferred that the Government should have put this off, but as we are going on with it I want to understand it as far as I can now. As I understand, the Government are going to allow the people who hitherto have been totally exempted to have some opportunity of not suffering worse than the people who have been partially exempted. Therefore if they can say that during the continuance of the war, so far as reasonably practicable, they have done public service, they will get the same benefit as the partially exempted. My point is this. I thought that at one time the Lord Chancellor or someone on the Bench opposite intimated that if a man now, having the disqualification put upon him, were to say, "While there is time I will do public service now," that this would be sufficient. Are you going to say now, "No; we will not allow you to qualify now; you must have qualified unconsciously against a disability which did not exist. Unless you have qualified unconsciously during the four years, you cannot get your vote."
VISCOUNT PEEL: I understand that the point of the noble Lord is this. He asks whether, after this has been introduced, a man can still gain his qualification. I think that it is perfectly clear that he can do so at any time.
LORD SHEFFIELD: That makes the thing much more tolerable.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in proviso (1) of subsection (2), to leave out "or military"

761
and to insert "military or air." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is merely formal.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 11, leave out ("or military") and insert ("military or air").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved to add, at the end of proviso (3) of subsection (2), the words "or in any work recognised by the Admiralty, Army Council, or Air Council, as work of national importance in connection with the war." The noble Lord said: I do not know whether the noble Viscount is prepared to accept these words. They were inserted by him in Clause 5 and they seem to be equally applicable in this subsection. It is quite obvious that the man is to be given his vote in connection with any work recognised by the Admiralty, Army Council, or Air Council, such as work connected with the British Red Cross, or the Society of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem in England. These words are equally as necessary here as in the previous clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 19, after ("object") insert ("or in any work recognised by the Admiralty, Army Council, or Air Council, as work of national importance in connection with the war").—(Lord Gainford.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not suppose that there will be any disposition on the part of any member of your Lordships' House to object to this Amendment; but upon the form, the Amendment might come in rather better in another place.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As the noble Viscount is to re-draft the clause, what does it matter?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Very well.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to add, at the end of proviso (4), "or that, having obtained an absolute exemption from military service without any such condition, he has nevertheless taken up and, so far as reasonably practicable, continued, some work of national importance, or been incapable of doing so." The noble Viscount said: I move these words in order to carry out what was evidently the intention of the
762
House, that those persons who have been unconditionally exempted should be placed in the same category as those who have been exempted on condition, and that they should have the opportunity of doing work of national importance and of regaining their qualification. If the clause is left as it is, they would have no sufficient opportunity of doing so.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 24, at end insert ("or that, having obtained an absolute exemption from military service without any such condition, he has nevertheless taken up and, so far as reasonably practicable, continued some work of national importance, or been incapable of doing so").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved the addition, at the end of subsection (2), of the words: "A list of the names, addresses, and other particulars of all persons disqualified under the provisions of this section shall be published by the naval, military, or air service authorities, as the case may be, before the completion of the first register to be prepared under this Act, and supplemental lists shall be published by them not later than the fifteenth day of Janaury and the fifteenth day of July in each year during the continuance of the present war and twelve months thereafter. If any person so disqualified votes or asks for a ballot or voting paper for the purpose of voting, he shall be guilty of a corrupt practice other than personation within the meaning of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883; and the expression 'corrupt practice' shall be construed accordingly."
The noble Earl said: I understand that this Amendment is one of some substance, because unless some such list as this is published by the Army, Navy, and Air Services, and unless from time to time a supplemental list is published, as the Tribunal is still to continue its sittings, I think it would be quite impossible for the registration officers to make out the Register properly and to keep off the Register those people whom you have decided to exclude from it. I think there are a certain number of men who have pleaded conscientious objection who will be disfranchised by this Bill, but who will not be over-scrupulous, and will try to get on the Register by change of address or other means. The second part of my Amendment deals with

763
the penalty for a conscientious objector not on the Register trying to vote. As the Bill stands, I think a conscientious objector who infringes the law will be liable only for illegal practices, for which the penalties, I understand, are far smaller than for committing a corrupt practice. It is rather curious to note that the penalty on the wife of an absent voter who makes some mistake about voting by proxy is heavy; there is no kindness or latitude shown to her. She comes within the clutches of the Corrupt Practices Act, and is liable to a year's imprisonment and other penalties. It seems to me that a conscientious objector who has tried to dodge national service and then tries to get a vote ought to receive at all events as great a punishment.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, after line 32, insert:
"A list of the names, addresses, and other particulars of all persons disqualified under the provisions of this section shall be published by the naval, military, or air service authorities, as the case may be, before the completion of the first register to be prepared under this Act, and supplemental lists shall be published by them not later than the fifteenth day of January and the fifteenth day of July in each year during the continuance of the present war and twelve months thereafter.
"If any person so disqualified votes or asks for a ballot or voting paper for the purpose of voting, he shall be guilty of a corrupt practice other than personation within the meaning of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883; and the expression 'corrupt practice' shall be construed accordingly."—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The Amendment of the noble Earl suggests that lists should be published of persons disqualified, under the provisions of this clause, by the naval, military, or air authorities. That really is not a duty that ought to be cast on those authorities. There is a considerable number of persons disqualified under this clause who are disqualified because of action which takes place before the Tribunals, which are under the Local Government Board, and the military authorities will not necessarily be able to furnish a list of persons dealt with by those Tribunals. Again, a number of these persons will be able to remove their disqualification by showing to this Tribunal up to a year after the war that they have done work of national importance.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: That only occurs since your Amendment, which is not on the Paper, was put in just now.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I cannot help that. It is the effect of the clause as it is, anyhow. In these circumstances I do not think it is necessary to refer to the effect of the latter part of the Amendment. I understand that the noble Earl wants to make a corrupt practice what is now an illegal practice. I do not think, in any case, this would be the right place to put it in, and also I think the present penalties would be sufficient.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No doubt the noble Viscount is quite right. But I do think my noble friend has made out a case for some kind of publication. It may very likely be that those authorities are not the right authorities to do it, but there ought to be some publication, otherwise how is the registration officer to know? My noble friend has pointed out that many of the decisions will be the decisions of the Central Tribunal. That is quite true. My noble friend also says that the Local Government Board will be the appropriate Office in the circumstances. Let it be the Local Government Board; but the Government should select one Office, probably the Home Department. I think my noble friend has made out a case for somebody to publish a list.
VISCOUNT PEEL: There is no doubt a difficulty there. I understand that the military authorities would be quite ready to give particulars as to any case in which they were asked by the registration officers, because otherwise I understand it would involve tremendous work in looking through the whole of the lists of Courts-Martial. And the registration officer no doubt would be easily able to obtain from the Tribuuals or the Central Tribunal the record of their sittings. But it is a matter of difficulty and I shall be glad to consider it.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: I should like to have it distinctly from the Government that they will meet this case, and that it will not be left till the Report stage for something to be put in. The noble Viscount (Lord Peel) says that the naval, military, and air service authorities are not the departments that ought to be called upon to publish a list. Technically that may be so, but they are the people who ought to supply the list; and if the noble Earl opposite puts in the word "supply" in the third line of his Amendment instead of "published," I think that would meet

765
the case. This Amendment ought to be pressed unless the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill gives a definite undertaking that he will meet the grievance.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: I think it will be hard and almost impossible work for the registration officer to find whether the people concerned have exemption or not; and it ought to be possible for the body which gives the exemption to help him by letting this list be in his hands before he begins to compile the Register.
EARL RUSSELL: I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment or some Amendment like it. It seems to me to be a very fitting crown to the edifice of folly erected in regard to this matter. Does the House realise what will be the result of the publication of this proposed manual? It would be looked upon by some—certainly by the conscientious objectors—as a glorious record, and they would be extremely proud of it. It would be part of the extraordinary policy which the Government have pursued in this matter—that is to say, of losing no opportunity on all occasions to advertise conscientious objectors to the world.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Does the noble Earl press his Amendment?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Yes.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have said that the matter will be fully considered. There are great difficulties in connection with this, and many points have to be considered. May I make an appeal to the noble Earl not to press his Amendment in this form? I have said that the matter will be thoroughly gone into, and that the Government will do what they can to meet the position.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I certainly will withdraw after that definite pledge. I do not want the clause to stand so that anybody can pass through it. If the noble Viscount promises that the matter will receive the attention of the Government, I am content.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I promise that, of course.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SYDENHAM LORD SYDENHAM moved the omission of subsection (4). The noble Lord said: I am afraid that this may seem a very trifling matter to raise in the middle of this great Bill, which will sweep aside most of our old constitutional landmarks, and will open the doors wide for measures of Socialism. But there is a small question of principle involved, and for that reason I have ventured to put down this Amendment. In the past it was strongly held that the paid agent should not add his vote to the votes he collected for his employer. While that system lasted, I believe a great many abuses were discovered. In these days when we are more moral in elections—as I hope we are in other things—it may not be necessary to preserve that precaution any longer. But whether the system of the paid agent is right or wrong, I venture to think that this subsection must be unnecessary and superfluous, and I cannot understand why it appears here. In Clause 8 there is nothing to prevent the paid agent from voting; therefore I cannot see why a subsection need be inserted giving him a power which has not been taken away from him. This subsection was introduced in the other House on the Report stage in an almost empty House, and was never discussed. If your Lordships see fit to take it out of the Bill, I do not think that there will be any violent conflict upon the point with the House of Commons. The subsection cannot represent the will of the House of Commons, and still less can it represent the will of the people.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 1, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Sydenham.)
LORD SOMERLEYTON: I trust that the Government will not accept this Amendment. I believe that the subsection will remove a very long-felt and legitimate grievance inflicted on election agents, clerks, messengers, and polling agents. I would remind the House that this disqualification from voting was introduced in 1872, when there was no limit to the number of people who could be employed by a Parliamentary candidate. At that time a great deal of abuse existed. That has now been totally altered. In 1883 the number was strictly limited, and the whole point of this disqualification disappeared. I believe that no abuse whatever would be found at the present time. The number of people employed, or

767
employable, in elections is very small, and owing to the small amount of money that can be spent that number cannot be greatly increased. With regard to what the noble Lord has said as to there being no necessity for the subsection, I would point out that the law at the present time is that these people have not the power to vote; therefore it is most desirable in their interests—and I speak on behalf of some of them—that they should be specifically given that right in the Bill.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Lord Sydenham wishes to leave out this subsection, which removes a disqualification, and he wishes to put back the disqualification.
LORD SYDENHAM: No, I do not wish to put it back. I did not want to argue the point at all.
VISCOUNT PEEL: But you wish to undo the work of the other House.
LORD PARKER: Is not the point a simple one—namely, whether the disqualification is not repealed by the repeal of the Statute which imposes the disqualification? I rather fancy that if the noble Lord will look at the repeal section he will find that the Act which imposes the disqualification is repealed, and in that case an express removal of the disqualification is not necessary.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I will deal with that first. The noble and learned Lord, of course, knows more about drafting than I do, but I have always understood that it was the worst possible drafting to try to make alterations by putting repeals at the end of a Bill, and that you always placed the passage referring to it in the body of the Bill, because otherwise members of both Houses, who are not so learned as the noble and learned Lord, would not know what was the legislation or what was being repealed.
I turn now to the point of principle. I suppose that it is strictly against principle to allow people who are paid in this way to have a vote; but, as Lord Somerleyton has pointed out, there is very great practical convenience in doing what the other House has done. As that noble Lord pointed out, the number of these people is strictly limited; secondly, the expenses of elections are very much more limited; and thirdly, as there has been
768
such a great extension of the franchise it is extremely difficult to get hold of people to do this responsible work who are not electors; therefore you must inevitably disqualify certain persons. Further, as all elections will come on one day you are practically forced to employ people in the particular area and not go outside. Otherwise you could take people who were electors, but who were not voting in that particular constituency. It comes to this in practice—that a man has to search about to find responsible people who will discharge this duty, and, if people who are so selected are disqualified, it really means that you must disqualify good people because you cannot find anybody else who can do the work. This is not in the real interests of properly conducted elections; and I urge my noble friend in the interests of those who, like myself, have had to conduct a great many elections, not to press an Amendment where the practical advantages, I think, are against his view, though I admit the general strength of the principle on which he relies.
LORD SYDENHAM: Would the noble Viscount ascertain whether, in the Acts which are now being repealed, the disqualification of the agent has not already disappeared?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think it still exists.
LORD SYDENHAM: I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The next Amendment is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 3, leave out ("legally").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved to omit from subsection (4) the words "any Parliamentary or local government" and insert "such." The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment, and I hope the Government will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 4, leave out ("any Parliamentary or local government") and insert ("such ").—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved the addition, at the end of subsection (4), of the words "so long as the employment is legal." The noble Viscount said: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 4, at end insert ("so long as the employment is legal").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH moved to add to Clause 8 the following subsection: "(5) A person shall not be entitled to be qualified or registered or to vote who has been convicted of a criminal offence or served a sentence of imprisonment for any offence not a misdemeanour." The noble Lord said: In rising to put the Amendment that appears in my name I do not know how far English law prohibits it, but if it does not, I think it is a very desirable thing that those who are convicted of criminally breaking the law should not be allowed to Lave a voice in the making of it. I know that in the Colonies it is so, because men have claimed as part of their residential term the period while they have been confined in prison. I think it is very necessary that those who are convicted should be placed under this disability. If my Amendment be thought too stringent I should not object to the words "twice convicted."
Amendment moved—
Page 8, after line 4, insert as a new subsection:
"(5) A person shall not be entitled to be qualified or registered or to vote who has been convicted of a criminal offence or served a sentence of imprisonment for any offence not a misdemeanour."—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am not quite sure that I understand fully what this Amendment means. Your Lordships will see that it is proposed altogether to disqualify, apparently for the whole of their lives, persons who have been convicted of criminal offences. I am not quite sure what "criminal" in that connection means. This Amendment as drafted would have a rather quaint result, and that is due to the words "served a sentence of imprisonment for any offence not a misdemeanour." Of course, numbers of person serve sentences of imprisonment up to about a month for not paying fines, and therefore you are going to disqualify such persons for the whole of their lives; whereas persons who
770
have committed misdemeanours—very much more serious offences—are to get off. I do not think your Lordships would entertain a proposal of that kind.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: If it is possible to re-draft it, would the Government be willing to reconsider the Amendment in a re-drafted form?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I could not undertake that. The matter is already dealt with in the Felony Act.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved to add, at the end of the clause, the following new subsection: "Any incapacity of a Peer to vote at an election arising from the status of a Peer shall not extend to Peeresses in their own right." The noble Lord said: The position of a Peeress in her own right seems rather doubtful under the Bill. The wife of a Peer, if her husband is entitled to be registered for the local government vote, has a right to vote, but the position of a Peeress in her own right seems to be doubtful, and if she exercises the vote it might lead to legal troubles. Therefore I ask the Government to give consideration to my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 4, at end insert the new subsection:
"(5) Any incapacity of a Peer to vote at an election arising from the status of a Peer shall not extend to Peeresses in their own right."—(Lord Desborough.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: As your Lordships know, the great news has already gone out to the stately homes of England that the wives of Peers will be able to vote, but there is still some doubt apparently under the Bill whether Peeresses in their own right can vote. I understand that the disqualification of Peers for voting rests mainly upon the fact that they are represented and either sit in the House themselves, or, in the case of Scottish Peers, elect representatives. The matter is in some doubt, and the noble Lord is no doubt anxious to remove the doubt. I think probably your Lordships will be quite ready to accept the Amendment, which places the matter beyond all doubt.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Before the Amendment is put, I should like it to be made quite certain that it does not give Peeresses in their own right any right to sit in this House.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I can take away that horrible suspicion.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
LORD BERESFORD LORD BERESFORD rose to move the insertion, after Clause 8, of the following new clause: "No person who is not a natural-born British subject shall be qualified to be elected a Member of Parliament."
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: Before the noble Lord moves, I would like on a point of order to ask whether such an Amendment as this would be within the scope and within the title of this Bill. There is nothing apparently in the title of the Bill to cover the qualification of members of either House of Parliament, and I should think that this would be regarded by the House of Commons as altogether outside tie scope of the Bill.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not know whether it is a matter upon which I am entitled to express any opinion. I was only going to point out, in answer to what the noble Viscount said, that we do introduce a qualification with regard to persons who can be elected for local government authorities under Clause 9, and I do not know, therefore, whether the noble Viscount draws a distinction between persons who can be elected for Parliament and those who can be elected for local authorities.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: When Clause 9 comes on it is my intention to ask the Lord Chancellor, or whoever may be prepared to answer such a point on behalf of the Government, whether Clause 9 does fall within the title of the Bill, because I certainly should have thought that it did not.
LORD BERESFORD: I am in the hands of your Lordships and if there is any doubt about its being in order I should be glad to postpone this Amendment to the Report Stage.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I think that when Lord Clifford of Chudleigh moved an Amendment two or three days ago, Viscount Haldane called attention to the fact that it was out of order because of the Preamble and title of the Bill.
LORD BERESFORD: If I am not out of order I should like to bring before your Lordships what I think is the necessity for putting such a clause in the Bill. It really is to prevent naturalised subjects from being able to get into either House of Parliament. In other words, no naturalised subject should be qualified. Of course, their children would be qualified to sit in either House. The fact is, there have been some very alarming cases lately of people becoming Members of Parliament. We have surely got enough of those whom I may describe as enemy voters in this country without having enemy Members of Parliament in either House. We have been faced with very grave national dangers in the present war through alien enemies who have become naturalised, some of whom have been locked up. In my humble opinion, all should have been locked up at the very beginning of the war. We know that some of them have consorted with spies, traitors, sedition mongers, and those people who call themselves pacifists and forget what our men are doing in the trenches and on the sea for the honour and defence of our country. I think they ought to be shut up for so foully abusing our hospitality in the past. The Naturalisation Act of 1914 repealed a clause in the Third Act of Settlement of George I which did disqualify naturalised subjects from sitting as members in either House.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: Not the Act of 1914.
LORD BERESFORD: The Act of 1914 repealed that provision of the Act of George I. The latter Act disqualified naturalised subjects from sitting in either House, from being members of the Privy Council, and from holding military or civil positions of trust. I am sorry that those provisions have been repealed. It was a mistake to repeal them. I know we are promised the complete overhauling of the Naturalisation Laws. I hope that will be most effectively carried out, so that the Naturalisation Laws will be more consonant with our honour and dignity. In five months after war broke out we actually naturalised 127 German and Austrian alien enemies. All I can say is, I think that that was an act bordering on lunacy. Here we are in a great war, and we actually make it possible for people whom we know to be our enemies to do us infinite harm, and to help the enemy in

773
the killing of our men at sea and in the trenches. There are a number of people in this country who I may say bought their way into society. I have no place for them. They have given us large subscriptions, but there is plenty of good British money without going to them. On the face of it, if they are loyal to us they are traitors to their own country. I do not care about traitors to whatever country they may belong.
In the United States there is a law that no person is eligible for the office of Senator unless he is thirty years of age, has been a citizen of the United States for nine years, and is an inhabitant of the State for which he is chosen. That is for Congress. In the House of Representatives no person can be elected who has not attained the age of twenty-five years, been seven years a citizen of the United States, and is an inhabitant of the State for which he is chosen. That appears to me to be a very common sense law, and I should like something of that sort to be introduced here, if my proposal is not agreed to.
To prove my case I will give two glaring instances. A naturalised subject is qualified for Parliament, and there have been cases in which aliens have been naturalised and have stood for Parliament within a month. I will give one case with regard to the other House. There was a person called Tribitsch Lincoln, who was returned as Member of Parliament in 1910, when I was in the other House. I heard his first speech. I did not know what language he was talking. It certainly was not English. He was talking about your Lordships' House, and this is what he said—
"Who are these Peers? We will put them back into the gutter. They are riding roughshod over us. We will not have it."
This Austrian spy spoke of your Lordships' House in this manner. He was an Austrian adventurer, and by his own confession he was a paid German spy. I may give his story briefly to your Lordships. He went to York when he was extremely poor. Suddenly he became possessed of a great deal of money. I wonder where he got it. I do not think we have to look very far. He got it from Germany, who went on the principle of having paid spies in every country. His career was very variegated. He was a Doctor of Philosophy, and I may call him a philosophic traitor, as he appeared to be afterwards He embarked
774
on all sorts of different careers in life. He was a clergyman in Canada, and he was, I am informed, an ordained curate for Canterbury in England. He was one of those mean people who bring religion to bear on their arguments in order to get what sympathy they can. He was a distinguished member of the National Liberal Club. He spoke six languages. During the election of Darlington he tried his best to get the British Fleet reduced. He slandered the soldiers whenever he go a chance, and he was violently anti-British, Yet he was elected as a Member of Parliament. I want, if I can by this Amendment, to bring some sort of what I may call common sense law to bear on this subject in this country so that we should not allow such people to be elected to our Parliament.
The second case is that of a person named Laszlo. He is qualified for Parliament when he comes out of internment. Who is he? If his guilt necessitated internment, it surely necessitated his denaturalisation as well. He was naturalised only seven days before the war, in order to release him from the liability of fighting for his own country. That is an act which cannot commend itself to anybody in this House. I believe he sent letters to Germany via the Cape. He certainly used the diplomatic despatch box of a neutral Minister. Why did he not use the ordinary post? He was in communication with a most clever, unscrupulous, and notorious enemy of this country, Count Luxburg, and he sent his telegrams to Count Luxburg, who got them through Argentina to Berlin. Count Luxburg was one of those gentlemen who sent letters by cypher to have Argentine ships sunk in such a way as to leave no trace. In other words, "Dead men tell no tales." I have a peculiarly violent feeling against him, because I know so many of those splendid mercantile marine officers, seamen, and firemen who have been lost on sixty-four ships, leaving no trace. No doubt they were sent to the bottom by the same means. This gentleman used the bag of a neutral and friendly Power in order to send his despatches. Cypher messages were sent in the same way, and were discovered through the vigilance of the United States. We know these Germans use the hospitality given them to assist them in all their traitorous plans; we know that Laszlo made statements calculated to help our enemy, but he is still qualified, by being naturalised, to come into Parliament. He is sup-

775
ported by many distinguished people. I find no fault with that. The only thing I can say is that they thought this individual was as honest as themselves, but they have found that that is not the case. These people should first give up their allegiance to their own country, and, I hope, when the new law is brought in, that no man will be naturalised unless he first gives up his allegiance to the country to which he previously belonged. Germans, Russians, and Austrians can never give up their allegiance; that is the law of those countries. I think that must be altered, and that no unnaturalised person should be eligible to be a member of either House of Parliament. That is what I claim, and what I hope your Lordships will approve. I am not talking of the children of unnaturalised parents.
I say that nobody should be qualified to become a member of Parliament, in either House, unless born of British parents. Parentage is the qualification for all civilised States, except the United States, and I think we should copy what other civilised States do. At this moment the Government, in my humble opinion, are not taking enough steps with regard to aliens. They ought to follow the example of the United States and Italy, and the mere fact of a man being an alien should qualify him for being locked up. I do not want to abuse them; I would feed them well, but I would take care they were removed from areas where they could do harm. I do not want to make; this Amendment retrospective, but I want it to be the law for the future. We have suffered great dangers in the past; and I have given your Lordships two examples, one of a person who actually got into Parliament, and the other of one who is qualified for Parliament at the present moment.
Amendment moved—
To insert, after clause 8, the following new clause:
". No person who is not a natural-born British subject shall be qualified to be elected a member of Parliament."—(Lord Beresford.)
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: I want to correct one misconception in the noble and gallant Lord's speech, in which he stated that the Naturalisation Act of 1914 repealed some of the existing disqualifications of aliens to sit for Parliament. That was not the fact. Naturalised aliens have been
776
able to sit in Parliament for a great number of years. The noble and gallant Lord gave an interesting description of two naturalised aliens to whom his Amendment, or his new clause, would apply. I think it would have been interesting if he had carried his illustrations a little further. I am not sure whether the words of the Amendment are intended to apply to both Houses of Parliament. If so, there are two noble Lords to whom they would apply—namely, Viscount Astor and Lord Shaughnessy.
LORD BERESFORD: I said it is not to be retrospective.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: Then I suppose the noble Lord would make it impossible for General Botha, General Smuts, or Sir George Perley ever to enter either House of Parliament. If it is not to be retrospective it would save the Prime Minister's private secretary, Mr. Astor, but if they had been still living it would have applied with great force to two distinguished members of the Carlton Club—Sir Ellis Ashmead-Bartlett and Mr. Burdett-Coutts. These are only illustrations as to how far you can carry yourself if you put down such widely embracing words in an Act of Parliament to which they are not specially appropriate.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think my noble and gallant friend will recognise that his Amendment is probably wider than he intended it, after listening to what the noble Viscount has just said. He is really trying to alter the Act of 1870, and to limit the Naturalisation Act which gives all the rights of British citizens, including that of being elected to Parliament, to those who are naturalised, and he strikes back to the Act of Settlement over 200 years ago. First of all, I am not sure that the words used by the noble and gallant Lord carry out his intention. Take the Act of 1914—the British Naturalisation and Status of Aliens Act—in which the definition is given of a natural-born British subject. Among these are "any persons born within His Majesty's Dominions and allegiance." I think it is clear that the naturalised Hungarian, the son of Hungarian parents and born in this country, would be natural-born. Therefore by his Amendment he would exclude Germans or Hungarians, if they were born in this country, and they would probably be some of the most dangerous people, from

777
sitting for Parliament. I think it is important to enforce what the noble Viscount has already said. Is it really intended by your Lordships that persons like General Botha and General Smuts shall be disqualified, if they wish to, from sitting for the House of Commons, or in this House either? I am sure the noble Lord could not have intended such a thing; yet if this Amendment is passed, that would be one of its effects. If this proposition went to another place, I think it would be certain they would retort on this House; and I wish your Lordships to consider what might be the effect of disqualifying those who at present sit in it under these circumstances.
LORD BERESFORD: It is not to be retrospective.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord may not intend it to be retrospective. I am only dealing with the Amendment if it becomes law, not so much with his intention as with the words, and they would be retrospective. Let me give another illustration of the difficulty of dealing with this proposition on this particular Bill. I understand that by a decision—I am not sure whether it is of the House of Lords or of the Privy Council—I think it was the Privy Council, it has been decided that a Privy Councillor need not be a natural-born British subject. What an extraordinary anomaly you are going to establish when you say a man may enter the Privy Council of His Majesty, may become familiar with all the inner secrets of our Government, and yet at the same time you are not going to allow him to become a Member of Parliament, when probably he would only get evasive answers from Ministers in another place. That is one of the great difficulties there is in dealing with so big and so peculiar a subject as the Naturalisation Laws, incidentally in a Franchise Bill. As I suggested on a previous Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Jersey, I think that matters of this kind, complicated as they are, ought to be left to some amendment of the naturalisation laws, when the matter can be fully considered in all its bearings.
Possibly what I have said will be sufficient to induce my noble friend to withdraw his Amendment, because whatever objections there may be to naturalised aliens like Mr. Trebitch Lincoln and others sitting in the House of Commons, he has obviously cast his net far too wide even
778
in the case of those gentlemen. After all, it is the constituency that elects them. I never could understand why the constituency of Darlington should reject so admirable and solid a representative as my friend Mr. Pike Pease for this Hungarian adventurer. I hope in these circumstances that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I thoroughly agree with a great deal that has fallen from my noble friend Lord Beresford, but I suggest to him that, dealing with such a subject as that upon which we are now engaged, it would be very dangerous at this incidental stage of this Bill to attempt to deal with this very important question of naturalisation. For the greater part of some centuries it has been the law that you could not sit in Parliament if you were a naturalised alien. That, however, for the moment, has been passed over. I think, however, that the matter is one which undoubtedly requires very serious consideration. We are not dealing only with those who may become our enemies, but we are also dealing, as my noble friend suggested, with our Colonies too. It would be a very serious thing if you were to attempt to shut out of Parliament some of our Colonial friends. Whatever may be the particular difficulty that has arisen—and a great deal of difficulty has arisen, and there has been very gross abuse—I do suggest that it would not be desirable to put such a clause as this in the middle of what is practically a discussion upon another matter altogether. My noble friend had much better reserve his views, in which I entirely and heartily concur, to the period when the question of naturalisation comes before us.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I wish to say a word, not upon the main question, but in order to enter a protest and a testimony against the way in which the noble and gallant. Lord has dragged in the name of Mr. Laszlo, and has uttered what I believe to be calumnious accusations against him. I am familiar with the case of Mr. Laszlo. I know that he is interned. I strongly believe that many of the statements of the noble and gallant Lord are absolutely contrary to the truth. He has been completely misinformed, and I challenge him here to repeat those statements out of the House where he would be subject to an action for libel.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that the mischief which my noble and gallant friend is aiming at is really the laxity with which naturalisation is granted to aliens. He has not confined himself to that. His clause would have an effect in such cases as those to which my noble friends opposite referred which he would himself be the first to deplore. In the old days when a man was naturalised by Act of Parliament it was another matter. I do think, however, that our laws of naturalisation very much require to be overhauled, and that the conditions of naturalisation should be a great deal more stringent than they are. I hope that my noble and gallant friend will not press this Amendment further.
LORD BERESFORD: After the remarks made by noble Lords I cannot, of course, press the point of adding this clause to the Bill. I quite see the point of the noble Viscount below me. It never struck me that it would debar most distinguished people like General Smuts and others from coming to this House. That, of course, could not have been my intention. What I really wanted to do was to draw attention to certain facts which are undeniable as far as Mr. Lincoln is concerned, but which my noble friend Lord Sheffield denies on the part of Mr. Laszlo. I got them from very good authority.
LORD SHEFFIELD: Publish them outside.
LORD BERESFORD: My informants were bona fide, and I believe them. However, if I am proved to be wrong I shall certainly be the first to apologise. I am glad to hear that the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend Lord Halsbury consider that the real point is to look into the naturalisation laws and have them reformed, for the good of our country, in a common sense way. I beg leave, therefore, to withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I was not in the House when my noble friend alluded to the case of Mr. Laszlo, but I understand from Lord Sheffield that he did so. I want to associate myself with Lord Sheffield in what he said about Mr. Laszlo. I gave evidence before the Committee, and I shall be prepared to do so again. Although that gentleman may have been guilty of an indiscretion, as to which I know nothing, I cannot believe that he was guilty of any dishonourable conduct.
LORD SHEFFIELD: Hear, hear.
LORD LAMBOURNE: I hope that the House will remember, in respect to Mr. Laszlo, that there is another side of the case. I am not now speaking in favour of the remarks which have just been made, but in favour of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Beresford.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9:
Qualification for membership of local authority.
9. A person shall be qualified to be elected a member of any local government authority who is the owner of a freehold or leasehold properly within the area of that authority.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, after "A person shall," to insert "in addition to and without prejudice to any other qualification." The noble Lord said: If these words were not inserted it might be suggested that the qualification set up in Clause 9 for membership of a local authority was the only qualification.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 5, after ("shall") insert ("in addition to and without prejudice to any other qualification").—(Viscount Peel.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The Amendment which the noble Viscount has proposed throws some light on what I stated before, that it is very difficult to see how this clause is germane in this Bill, and it is because there are quite different Statutes prescribing possible qualifications for a local government elector that it is necessary, in stating a qualification here, to make it clear that it is not, as it may naturally be supposed to be, the only qualification, but that there are a number of others. The Bill in this form having passed the scrutiny of the authorities in another place, I suppose that we may assume that this clause is proper here, but I confess that its appearance does seem to me exceedingly strange, and as the Lord Chancellor is in his place, I should be very much obliged if he would give his opinion as to the precise bearing of this clause on the measure which we are considering.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The clause is certainly very near the line, but it has passed through the House of Commons and is before us, and I do not

781
think that we can strike it out on the ground that the Commons were wrong in putting it in. I am reminded that qualification as a candidate depends upon being on the list of electors. By this you say that a person shall be qualified to be a member of any local government authority who has a freehold or leasehold property in the area of that authority. It is really germane in another way, because owners were the electors. They are not now, but it would be very hard if, by taking away their right to vote, you took away their capacity for being members of the authority. I think we should be wrong to refuse to deal with this clause on the ground that it is in any way out of order. I think it is distinctly in order.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The next is merely a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 6, leave out ("any local government authority who") and insert ("the local government authority for any local government electoral area if he").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BURNHAM LORD BURNHAM moved, on behalf of the Earl of Ancaster, to omit "a freehold or leasehold property" and to insert "property held by freehold, copyhold, leasehold, or any other tenure."
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 6, leave out ("a freehold or leasehold property") and insert ("property held by freehold, copyhold, leasehold, or any other tenure").—(Lord Burnham.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think there is no objection to these words.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
LORD BURNHAM LORD BURNHAM moved, after Clause 9, the insertion of the following new clause: "Such of the freemen of the City of London as are liverymen of the several companies and resident within twenty-five miles of the City shall be entitled to be registered as Parliamentary electors for that constituency. Any liveryman so registered and having a business premises qualification within the City shall be entitled to elect to have his vote recorded as that of a liveryman, or, alternatively, as the vote to
782
which he is entitled by a business premises qualification in that constituency."
The noble Lord said: I trust that you will think none the worse of the new clause that I have put on the Paper because it has a touch of sentiment about it, the sentiment of preserving the historic continuity of our Parliamentary life. I propose to preserve the right of the liverymen of the City Companies to vote in Parliamentary elections. It really keeps for us a piece of the old Gothic architecture of our Constitution. There are, as your Lordships probably know, twelve larger Companies and some seventy-seven smaller Companies, or Guilds, whichever you choose to call them. And these Guilds have been the nurseries of the crafts and commerce of the City of London. They have an immemorial right to vote. They had it probably as early as any of those who were able to vote for the election of members to Parliament; in fact, there is no period of British history in which you do not find the Guilds of the City of London exercising great power within the boundaries of the City and possessing political as well as municipal rights. There seems no good reason for abolishing those rights.
There is no question of the service that the Guilds have rendered to the community, and I am sure that my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill will be the first to testify to that, because he himself has been Master of a City Company. In the Middle Ages, and long after that, they really controlled the various industries of the City, and to some extent of the country, and then, after a long period of torpor, they have had all their duties revived and in many cases they at present discharge the function of supervising, by licence, the trades with which their names are associated. The Goldsmiths', the Fishmongers' and the Stationers' Companies are cases in point. Nearly all the commercial education we have in the City of London is due to the City Guilds, because they first saw the importance, of teaching foreign languages and they have done magnificent service in that respect. When we turn to the imperfect state of our technical training, we have to recollect that there would be hardly any worthy of the name had it not been for what the City Guilds have done, directly or indirectly, for promoting technical education, both in London and in the provinces. In many cases, quite apart from their donations and subscriptions

783
to technical institutes in London, some of which they have founded, they have also set up in districts remote from London, connected with the trades which they supervised and controlled, institutions which have done much to enable us to compete successfully with the foreigner, and in many cases with the enemy, who have turned the trades, at any rate to some extent, from our own districts.
All this they have done. It seems a poor reward that when it comes to this Reform Bill, which is not in any other respect a Bill for disfranchisement, they should be disfranchised. There are only 8,000 liverymen. It cannot matter from a political or Party point of view, because their votes, of course, entirely relate to the double-barrelled constituency of the City of London, which is left intact for the purposes of this Bill. It will certainly not affect the balance of representation, but what it will do is to give a great many men who are at the very head and front of the City's firms and companies—I am talking now of the merchant companies—the opportunity of qualifying as city voters. I have a list here giving a great number of names of men who are directors of the Bank of England, chairmen of banking companies, railway companies, and insurance companies, who, but for their franchise of liverymen, would no longer have any political connection with the city, in the affairs of which they really have so much to say. Those men fall under this category.
I do not think that it will be seriously contested in another place if you make this Amendment. It is quite true it was raised there, and the Home Secretary said he was unable to accept the Amendment which I am now moving, because there was a certain risk of dissent, and that dissent came from one or two Members. I have reason to believe, although, of course, I cannot give you any guarantee, that if this Amendment were inserted no great battle, would be made over it in another place. I have in my bands a letter which shows to some extent the attitude of Labour towards the question. The letter is from Mr. J. A. Seddon, the chairman of the General Council of the British Workers' League. My noble friend, Lord Sheffield, laughs at the suggestion, but at any rate Mr. Seddon was President of the Trades Union Congress, which gives him a better claim,
784
I suppose, than the noble Lord to speak for the direct interests of Labour. He says—
"I fully share the desire that the vote should be retained for the Livery Companies."
Still, I am not putting that forward as anything but the testimony of one Labour leader. I submit that this provision is an exception to the Bill, and an objectionable exception. It disfranchises, whereas all the other provisions relating to the vote enfranchise. It is an unmerited stigma on all those who have done magnificent service from the civic point of view, and is of no Party advantage whatsoever. It is a picturesque remnant that your Lordships have the opportunity of saving, and I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept this clause as an addition to the Bill.
Amendment moved—
After clause 9 insert as a now clause:
".Such of the freemen of the City of London as are liverymen of the several companies and resident within twenty-five miles of the City shall be entitled to be registered as Parliamentary electors for that constituency. Any liveryman so registered and having a business premises qualification within the City shall be entitled to elect to have his vote recorded as that of a liveryman, or, alternatively, as the vote to which he is entitled by a business premises qualification in that constituency.—(Lord Burnham.)"
VISCOUNT PEEL: My noble friend has introduced this Amendment, as he always does, in the best possible way. He is a powerful advocate of any cause he takes up. He was good enough to say that I have been Master of a City Company—it is the same Company as that of which the noble Lord himself is a past-Master—and therefore I think it is unnecessary for me to say anything as to my sympathy with the City Companies or the great position that they hold and have held for so many centuries in the City of London. But I rather criticise the expression used by my noble friend that it would be a poor reward to take away the franchise after the work they have done. Here, again, is the same fallacy as has been shown in many speeches which have been made in these debates. The vote is not given as a reward, but simply as a method of obtaining the opinion of the country. My noble friend also said that all the other provisions of this measure are enfranchising provisions, and that this was the only one which disfranchised. Is this so? The whole of the ownership vote disappears; and, if you go into questions of antiquity, I think I pointed out on the

785
First Reading that, merely regarding it as a statutory provision, the ownership vote dates back to the Wars of the Roses, and has a common law existence far longer than that. But what my noble friend is really anxious to do is to establish a fourth qualification. One of the objects of this Bill was to simplify the basis of the franchise. There were three qualifications only—namely, the residence qualification, the business qualification, and the University qualification. My noble friend now wants to introduce a fourth qualification, the Livery.
LORD BURNHAM: To leave it, not to introduce it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not think there is much difference between what my noble friend calls leaving it and introducing it. At any rate, it is a fourth qualification, and therefore a considerable alteration in the Bill. There is this difficulty in permitting or leaving in the Bill one of these fancy franchises—there are a great many of them, and if you admit one the claim of the others would be extremely strong. The freemen of the different ancient cities in this country might make the same claim. Although in the second part of his Amendment my noble friend suggests that if a man has a business vote and has also a livery vote he can be registered in that capacity, yet clearly the first part shows that he is to get the vote for a livery as a liveryman. Speaking generally, I am afraid that it would not be possible for the Government to accept an Amendment of that kind because it certainly does place four qualifications on the Statute Book, and not three.
I hope that I have not said anything but what is most respectful of the City Companies; and whether they vote as liverymen or not, I think it is the wish of the House that they should continue their splendid beneficent work for many centuries to come. To some extent I feel that, when you are making such a tremendous change as you are making by this Bill, it is better to make the change complete. It is better not in some cases to leave some mediæval remnants which are to some extent inconsistent with the new democratic simplicities that are placed on the Statute Book by this Bill. I regret very much not to be able to assent to the desire of Lord Burnham, but I
786
think that he will see the many difficulties in the way of so doing.
THE EARL OF MEATH: As a citizen of London, and as one who was for six years upon the London County Council, I would like to say a few words. I can hardly agree with the noble Viscount when he says that in the course of ages we have done away with the picturesque and the sentimental, because even in this House, when the King's Assent is given to Bills, Norman-French is used; and I think a certain number of us feel rather proud of that fact. To my mind one of the great interests of the British Constitution and the way it has grown is that we have wherever possible left in the picturesque, and even mediæval, parts of the old Constitution where they have not interfered with the advance of all true democracy. In this particular case, as the noble Lord pointed out, democracy would be able to exercise its power just as much if the liveries were left in as if they were cut out. I cannot conceive, when we have picturesque institutions like these, which have lasted for many centuries, closely connected with all our history and connected with the City of London (which, it must be remembered took up strongly the cause of freedom), why we should leave out this interest connected with these Companies, especially when we remember that they are the leaders and pioneers of all philanthropic and social work in the metropolis. Labour would not object: and I think it would be a great pity indeed if we cannot keep these liverymen in the Bill.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: I hope that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill will look at the suggestion of the noble Lord in rather a different spirit from that in which he started. I agree with the noble Lord. I think that most people would be glad to see Dick Whittington's privileges (which I suppose he had) maintained, and the liverymen not disturbed. I trust that my noble friend Lord Burnham will not be ridden off by objections, always plausible and pleasing, which the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill put before the House. The noble Viscount, with a gesture of the arm, said that this Bill was a large Bill; it was to deal with everything in a sweeping way; and nothing like fancy franchises of any sort were to be kept, or revived, or remodelled. That sounds very curious in connection with a Bill of this sort.

787
It is true that Lord Peel objected to that part of the Bill, and did not vote for it, which brought in such a fancy franchise in the women's clauses as an age qualification of thirty years—a sort of baptism by vote for those who are of riper years—but I do not think that the point of fancy franchise need disturb the conscience of the noble Viscount. We had a reminiscence about the ladies' vote when he said that the vote was not to be a reward. We all know that. But we heard from Lord Bryce that a vote was a thing which was granted on account of fitness. I think that the record of the services to the arts and crafts which have been rendered by the liverymen of London, have certainly established their claim for fitness for the vote.
I do not want to go into the question of the history of the thing, but I remember the Lord Chancellor saying the other day that the battle of peace would be more difficult to win than the battle of war. I also remember what has been said about the importance of voting for the right sort of people for the reconstruction of society; and, if you take that as a guide, I think you will find that the liverymen of London—who are all men who have thought of the benefits of society, and how those benefits could be obtained by education and otherwise—are the people whom you ought to retain as voters and not to disfranchise by a Bill of this sort.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I think that the House has been in a curiously gentle mood in the discussion of this question. Noble Lords have spoken as though this were a Bill for preserving certain old privileges, while abolishing others and adding some new franchises. With all deference, it really is nothing of the kind. It is a Bill which lays down the conditions on which the vote should for the future be given in this country. It defines the class of voters with reference to a very wide and sweeping principle. That principle appears in Clause 1 of the Bill, and it is repeated with variations in subsequent clauses. Women are brought in, but there is nothing that in the least approaches to the suggestion that you could justify the kind of franchise which it is now proposed to create as an exception to the principle of the Bill. Because it is not a question of keeping alive. All old franchises are superseded. There is nothing that can
788
justify the exception which it is proposed to make to the principle to which your Lordships assented when you passed the Second Reading. My noble friend behind me spoke as if he had some reason to suppose that the other House was likely to take in an agreeable spirit the proposal to make this exception. If there is anything which I venture to predict with confidence, it is that if you inserted this exception it would give rise to the most tremendous opposition and outburst in the other House. This is a Reform Bill creating a new franchise, but these liverymen—I think I am one myself—will have their votes elsewhere except so far as they are disqualified by being members of this House. Why is this exception to be put in? No doubt the picture drawn to us is very picturesque, but we are dealing with a Reform Bill, and to put in this exception is to provoke a storm, because the only justification is one which will not bear scrutiny in the light of the principle which underlies this Bill. Therefore I trust that the noble Viscount opposite will not in any way weaken in his opposition to the proposed new clause.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Nothing interests me more than the hope which politicians express that in carrying reforms they will simplify matters. That hope penetrated the speech of the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, and also the remarks of the last speaker. Do they really think that this Bill is a simple measure and that there are simple principles which underlie it? The whole thing bristles with anomalies and parodoxes from one end to the other. Do they really think that the women's clause has any principle in it, except the enfranchisement of women? There is nothing else. Every provision is an anomaly and a parodox. Do they think the soldiers' clauses are simple? What about the parodox of enfranchising the boy of nineteen, for example, and allowing every soldier to choose what constituency he will belong to. There is no principle at all. They are all expedients. I do not think they are to be objected to on that ground. That is the nature of British legislation—to go on broad expedients built up one after another to get round difficulties; but the idea that if this Bill passes we are going to have a simple system is ridiculous.
Lord Burnham proposes that in this one particular the old franchise of the livery of the City of London should be

789
maintained. I regret very much the decision of the Government that they will not make an exception on that point. The City of London has always been treated differently in this country in almost every Reform Bill during the last century, and in this very Bill, unless I am very much mistaken, the City of London is treated in a special manner; for I rather think that in the redistribution clauses the City of London has special privileges granted to it. That is quite right. The City of London stands in a wholly exceptional position. Not only is it the greatest city in the Empire, but the greatest city in the world. It is the very heart of this marvellous organisation to which we belong, and that it should be separately treated seems to me not at all unreasonable.
My noble friend has pointed out that he does not propose to violate the principles, if principles they can be called, under which the plural vote has been modified in this Bill. I do not know whether the noble Viscount can defend the system of the business vote on any principle. It is another paradox; but at any rate there it is, and that allows a second vote to a man who has the business qualification. My noble friend does not propose to increase the number of votes, but he says, in the case of the City of London, let a man choose whether he will vote as a liveryman rather than as a business man. That is the extent of the concession. [Several NOBLE LORDS: No. No.] It may go a little further, but beyond all question we have here a great historic franchise, possessed by the greatest city in the world, and it asks to have this great historical concession maintained. I think the Government might make that concession.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Might I ask the noble Marquess, on that point, does he suggest that a man who is already qualified for the business vote in the City and also is a liveryman shall, if he elects, be registered as a liveryman?
LORD BURNHAM: That is the second part of my Amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes, but it is connected with the first part, which does establish a special livery qualification.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: I should like to have the point cleared up. Of course, many of us would have very little objection
790
if it were merely a case of what the voter elected to call himself, assuming that he was already qualified by having a business vote there; and that is what I thought my noble friend meant by the words of his Amendment. But the first part of the clause, I am afraid, does something beyond that, because it would give a vote to a liveryman who had no business qualification within the City, and I should object to such an extension of the franchise.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: The noble Marquess who spoke just now brought a very strong argument before your Lordships when be dilated upon the anomalies and paradoxes still contained in this Bill, but I venture to suggest that that argument has really very small bearing upon the point now at issue. The paradoxes to which he referred are no doubt anomalies in the general character of the Bill, but they are paradoxes which I venture to suggest by the nature of things will, during the course of time, and very shortly, disappear. They are temporary expedients; and the real question before us is whether we should add further paradoxes to the paradoxes which are contained in the Bill as it stands.
The noble Marquess says it is a paradox that the soldier should be able to vote at the age of nineteen. I have never said a word yet about the soldier's franchise when it has come before your Lordships, but undoubtedly that is an ebullition of sentiment which sprang up in the House of Commons due to the circumstances of to-day, and I think it is wholly incredible that the soldiers' franchise and the facilities for that franchise in this Bill are destined to be permanent parts of the electoral machinery in this country. So it was said, and said without serious contest, as to the paradox restricting the women's vote to women who have attained the age of thirty. That is the blunting of the edge of the present new departure, but it will not be maintained.
We all know, in point of fact, that this Bill is working towards a system under which we shall have a purely residential qualification for men and women. It may be that the business franchise will also be continued for some considerable time. This question will always be argued on the exigencies of the moment and on the balance of expediency for making or resisting the particular change at the particular

791
moment. I suggest, therefore, that the question of the retention of the freemen as electors in the City of London must be debated on the issue itself, and cannot be defended on the ground that these other paradoxes are contained in the Bill.
What are the arguments for and against the retention of the vote in the case of the freemen of London? It is a very strong argument, pressed by the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, that if you admit the freemen of London you must retain the freemen of Bristol. You must retain the freemen of Hull, the pot-wallopers of Liverpool, and the freemen of York and those others, scattered up and down the country, who cease to be enfranchised under the Bill and who will claim the same right of retention as it is now suggested should be granted to the freemen of London. These freemen have in almost every case done great things in the past. The freemen of London have been extraordinary champions of freedom. They were the men who stood with John Lilburne in the seventeenth century and with Jack Wilkes in the eighteenth century; just as the freemen of Bristol stood by Mr. Burke, and as the freemen of Hull stood by Andrew Marvell. Who are the freemen of London to-day who should be entitled in an anomalous manner to retain their privilege when most of the men are already admitted as residential electors, if not in London, then elsewhere, and who, as citizens, have already secured their power of election?
The truth is, my Lords, the City of London, as was pointed out by the noble Viscount, Lord Harcourt, has already got the singular privilege under the Bill of retaining two Members, and the whole practical bearing of this question is, What should be the character of the constituency choosing these two Members, and what should be the character of the Members so elected? I do not think two Members up or down make much difference, but we all know that, whatever might have been the action of the liverymen of London in the seventeenth and the eighteenth and in the earlier centuries, they are now a pretty solid Conservative mass, and the introduction of this retention of the liverymen's privileges would be to make the two seats of the City of London, already fairly secure as Conservative seats, more secure than ever. Whether that is the
792
sort of circumstance which would recommend acquiescence in these proposals if adopted here and sent to the other House, I leave to your Lordships to suggest. The whole question is not one which should be debated on the question of being a mere anomaly. It is whether you are prepared to assent to this sole survival of the Tight of freemanship in order to secure this effect in the representation of the people of London.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I confess I am sorry that the noble Lord should have indicated that this proposal was made for that purpose.
LORD COURTNEY: I did not say it was made for that purpose. Oh no.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The indication was in that direction. I am glad the noble Lord was only making a passing and not a very concrete allusion to Party politics, because I do not believe for a moment that Lord Burnham had in his mind any thought whether this would have a Conservative, or a Liberal, or a Labour effect.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: He desired to treat it purely on the merits of a great and historic constituency. I want specially to ask Lord Salisbury this, Did I gather that he would be prepared to support any scheme by which the liverymen should have the alternative to vote as liverymen or—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I support the Amendment as my noble friend has moved it.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It struck me that that came directly from the noble Marquess, and I should have thought that it would have offered a solution of the difficulty, because such a scheme would have maintained to a large extent the historical privilege and atmosphere, and what Lord Meath called the picturesque asset, of the City of London. I should be sorry really to be forced to a Division on the point, and I wish we could come to some agreement. I would point out what my noble friend Lord Peel has already indicated to your Lordships, that the City of London can scarcely stand alone in this matter. The

793
City of York, on its own behalf, claims rights, privileges, and antiquities as high as those of the City of London, and I believe there are many other ancient and honourable corporations which, if the case of London be conceded, have a case which appears to be almost unanswerable. I am bound to remind your Lordships that this claim was put forward in the House of Commons, and I think it was merely negatived I do not think it was even sidered worth while to divide in its favour, and, whatever your Lordships did, I do not see how the Government would be able at an ultimate stage to advise your Lordships to adhere to any Amendment we may make on this occasion if it is of the drastic character outlined by Lord Burnham.
LORD GAINFORD: In 1912 I had a great number of deputations from various liverymen in connection with the Bill which was then before another place. I looked at all the lists of liverymen and went very thoroughly into the whole question, because I was anxious at that time to find some solution of a real difficulty. The sentiment of the City of London is extraordinarily strong, and the men in the Livery Companies do associate themselves with the City of London, and for the most part they are business men in the City of London. So long as they desire to record their votes as liverymen who have business qualifications in the City, I agree with my noble friend Lord Harcourt that I am certainly not prepared to vote against a principle of that kind. I admit there may be a difficulty in connection with the freemen, but I would suggest, if I may, that we should not divide if we can possibly come to an agreement on this point. There is a great objection to the Amendment proposed by Lord Burnham in this respect, that if the Conservative or any other Party winch happened to be in a majority in any Livery Company desired to add enormously to their voting strength by men who had no identification with the City of London, it would be open to them to do so under the proposal as it is presented on the Paper. But if it was restricted to the second paragraph it would read, "Any liveryman resident within twenty-live miles of the City and registered for a business premises qualification within the City shall be entitled to elect to have his vote recorded as that of a liveryman, or, alternatively, as the vote
794
to which he is entitled by a business premises qualification in the constituency."
EARL RUSSELL: May I add to what the noble Earl said with regard to the figures? This matter came up twice in the House of Commons: the last occasion was about two months ago. On that occasion the figures were—48 in favour of the proposal, and 167 against. I think, therefore, there is hardly that general measure of acceptance that was indicated.
LORD STUART OF WORTLEY: I think the offer made by the noble Viscount below me does not amount to very much, because the clause as modified merely asks that a liveryman who does not happen to have a business premises qualification in the City shall get the qualification by virtue of his membership of the Livery Company. It does not give him a third vote. I understand it would apply only in a very small number of cases; it is not a large addition. Therefore, if we do indulge our historic and other forms of sentiment, we shall not be asking the other House of Parliament to consent to very much. I do not know whether it is possible in the constitution of these Livery Companies—I confess I do not know, although I am the son of an old spectacle maker—to make unlimited numbers of members of these Companies in order to provide a quantity of artificial electors; but if that is not the case, I think this House might try a little fall with the other House for the purpose of giving rein to what, after all, is not solely sentiment.
If it is the case that our forefathers gave the Parliamentary franchise to members of these Companies it was probably because, in their function of directing the trades and crafts of old, they became themselves versed in business affairs and qualified to give the vote in a wise way. What has happened since? Who are their historic successors? It is quite true that their historic successors are engaged in a different kind of occupation. All the same, they are engaged in the double occupation of receiving and managing the rents and profits of great properties which have enormously appreciated in value, and of applying those rents and profits in the extremely useful public service of promoting technical and other education. All you can say of that function is this, that it had the effect of saving the property of the City Companies from the attack made upon it in the year

795
1882 under the leadership of a member of the House of Commons, Mr. Bottomley Firth, and no one now suggests that these properties should be expropriated.
What, therefore, remains? You get this valuable kind of experience, which is not repeated elsewhere because I do not think you will find in any of the provincial towns that there is any case of a Trade Guild membership of which gives the franchise for that particular provincial constituency. It is true you might have the claim revived of the old "scot and lot" voters, but it would be easy to show that their historical successors are the ratepayers of to-day, who bear the same burdens and discharge the same functions. What remains as a justification of our indulging our sentiments in this matter? It is, that the special experience of these few men, and they ought to be kept few, makes this part of the City of London electorate approximate to something like a University constituency; makes it something like a commercial university.
There is one further observation that I should like to make, and it is that if ever there was a Bill which, on the face of it in every clause, showed the intention that the franchise should not be placed for ever on a doctrinaire basis; it is this Bill. If you wanted to place the constituency of the City of London on a strict doctrinaire basis you would not have a business premises qualification, and the City of London would be a constituency of caretakers. I think there is some ground for preserving this useful old qualification.
VISCOUNT PEEL: May I add one word to the appeal which was made to my noble friend by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, who leads the House? The issue is a simple one, after all. My noble friend wants to say that persons who are liverymen and have a business qualification in the City shall get a vote in the City. My suggestion is this—that the liverymen who have business qualifications in the City shall be able if they wish, to vote as liverymen. My noble friend, in his eloquent speech, based his case merely on sentiment and historical tradition. In this way the historical tradition is maintained, and, if he would accept the suggestion, I think he would preserve the tradition which he wishes to maintain. I hope he will be able to accept it, because I think it may possibly be accepted in another place.
LORD BURNHAM: It is a strong appeal which the noble Viscount makes to me, and, having regard to the figures in another place, I think if this were unanimously accepted it would carry great weight there. Therefore in the spirit in which it is offered, if he thinks that it will be supported by the Government in another place—I understand his undertaking to mean that—I would be prepared to agree.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I think he will have seen, as the debate has developed in the last half hour, that none of my colleagues have had an opportunity of speaking with any member of the Cabinet on the subject. I think the House will appreciate what I say. The last thing I desire is, by assenting to the very proper and admirable suggestion of the noble Lord, ultimately to find that it could not be supported in the House of Commons and that I should be charged with a breach of faith. Certainly, so far as we are concerned, we shall be glad to do anything we can to support the view of the noble Lord. In those circumstances may I suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn and that my noble friend should confer with the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, and the Government draftsman.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10:
Spring and autumn registers.
10. (1) Two registers of electors shall be prepared in every year, of which one (in this Act referred to as the spring register) shall be made for the qualifying period ending on the fifteenth day of January and the other (in this Act referred to as the autumn register) shall be made for the qualifying period ending on the fifteenth day of July.
(2) The spring register shall come into force on the commencement of the fifteenth day of April and remain in force until the fifteenth day of October, and the autumn register shall come into force on the commencement of the fifteenth day of October and remain in force until the fifteenth day of April.
(3) If for any reason the registration officer fails to compile a fresh spring or autumn register for his area or any part of his area, the register in force at the time when the fresh register should have come into force shall continue to operate as the register for the area or part of an area in respect of which default has been made.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, in subsection (2), to substitute "the first day

797
of May" for "the fifteenth day of April" where those words first occurred. The noble Earl said: This Amendment is not a very large one, but it is an important one. It is a proposal to change the date at which the Register shall come into force. There are two Registers, the Spring and the Autumn Register. One comes into force on April 15, and the other on October 15. The Amendment I have on the Paper is to put off for a fortnight the Register coming into force. If you will look at the first Schedule of the Bill you will see that, according to Rule 25, it is there stated that the Register will be published on April 15; the result is that the Register would be published on the same day as it comes into force. It may be possible that a General Election may take place on April 15, and in that case chaos and confusion would reign supreme. There would be practicably no Register available; but, in the more likely event of a by-election taking place on the same day as the Register comes into force, then it would be impossible to get the new Register, and a great deal of confusion would be caused.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 17, leave out ("fifteenth day of April") and insert. ("first day of May").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: This is the first of several Amendments of the noble Earl in which he wishes to alter one of what I may call the time-table dates, and to post pone the period at which the Register shall come into force These different dates have been very carefully considered by the Local Government Board, and they are very unwilling to insert any alterations. May I point out to the noble Earl that as regards the first Register the Government take this power under Clause 41—
"Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the first Register to be prepared under this Act shall come into force on, and remain in force until, such date as His Majesty may fix by Order in Council, and His Majesty may by any such Order alter, in connection with the first Register, any registration dates, including the dates governing the qualifying period, and direct that this Act shall have effect as so altered."
Thus there is power, if it is found that sufficient time is not given, to alter the date. That, of course, applies only during the war. If experience shows that those dates do not work well, it may be necessary to alter them afterwards, but no incon-
798
venience will be caused during the war. It will be very valuable to have had that experience, and to see how the dates work, and if necessary they might later be altered. The official view of the Local Government Board is that the work will be done in that time. I therefore urge the noble Earl not to disturb that arrangement, and not to press at this stage for any alteration in the dates.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Before the question that Clause 10 stand part of the Bill is put I should like to call attention to the hardship that has arisen by the formation of the double Register. The expense hitherto of the Registers has been borne, as I understand, by Imperial and local funds. We are now going, for purely Imperial purposes, to have two Registers in the year, and it seems to me very unfair to put the expense of a second Register, which is entirely for Imperial purposes, upon the local ratepayer. I am afraid that the actual possibility of amending this and putting the charge upon the Imperial Fund cannot be done now, but I have given notice of an Amendment to raise the question upon a later clause. It may be regarded as a question of privilege, and therefore it would not be possible actually to ask the House to agree to the Amendment. I should, however, like to ask those in charge of the Bill whether they have considered this hardship, and whether they will not see some way of removing it. I am not in this matter speaking for myself, but I am asked to raise it by all the county councils and many of the town councils in Scotland, who strongly feel that if you require two Registers for Imperial purposes, it is not fair that the gross expense now to be incurred, being much larger than it was before, should be divided in equal portions. They think that two-thirds of it should be paid by the Imperial Exchequer and one-third by the local authorities.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think that perhaps at this stage it would be enough if I said, in answer to the noble Lord, that it must not be assumed that having two Registers means double the expense of one Register, because the second Register will be much easier to make than the first, and its expense therefore, will probably be much less. The noble Lord has also raised a question about the Register for Scotland. May I be

799
allowed to defer what I was going to say on that point until the Amendment of the noble Lord is reached? It would be more convenient to discuss the question on that Amendment.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I did not allude to that point, because I know that it is not germane to this clause. The Amendment that I have put down to Clause 14 is probably a question of privilege, but as this is the first part of the Bill which mentions the double Register, I thought it right to raise the question and to ask whether some remedy could not be found. The point which the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill makes, that the two Registers will not be double the expense of the one, is no doubt very ingenious, but there will be fees to be paid to officials, and probably those fees will be regulated by the standard of the one Register, and to a large extent I believe the expense will be double.
Cluase 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Registration officers and areas.
11.—(1) Each Parliamentary borough and each Parliamentary county shall be a registration area, and there shall be a registration officer for each registration area.
(2) Where the registration area is a Parliamentary county and is coterminous with, or wholly contained in, one administrative county, the clerk of the county council, and where the registration area is a Parliamentary borough and is coterminous with, or wholly contained in, one municipal borough, the town clerk of the borough, shall be the registration officer for the area.
In any other case such clerk of the county council, or town clerk, shall be registration officer for the area as the Local Government Board may by Order direct, subject to any conditions which may be made by the Order as to the appointment of deputies for any part of the area.
(3) Any of the duties and powers of the registration officer may be performed and exercised by any deputy for the time being approved by the Local Government Board, and the provisions of this Act shall apply to any such deputy so far as respects any duties or powers to be performed or exercised by him as it applies to the registration officer.
(4) In the event of any vacancy in the office of any clerk of the county council or town clerk who is a registration officer, or in the event of his incapacity to act, any acts authorised or required to be done by or with respect to the registration officer may be done by or with respect to any person temporarily appointed in that behalf by the chairman of the county council or the mayor, as the case may be.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I have an observation to make upon the clause generally. I do not think that in his
800
excellent exposition of the Bill on the First Reading the noble Viscount, who of course had to make a selection of the subjects that he would deal with, said anything on that occasion by way of explanation of the great change that has been made in the matter of registration officers. The well-known body of revising barristers have, so to speak, had the boot applied to them, and I do not think that any explanation has been given upon that subject. It, of course, follows from the recommendation made as to the registration officers by the Speaker's Conference, but we have no means of knowing what reasons were given upon this subject. I do not know whether it is supposed that the new officials will be better or cheaper, or more expeditious, or what the reason is, and I think that it certainly would be interesting to the House to know something about it. It is clear from the provisions of the Bill that these registration officers are not entirely trusted, not only in matters of law, where one might expect that to be so, but even in matters of fact; because, as your Lordships know, a little further on in the Bill there are provisions for giving an appeal from them to the County Court. I do not wish to take up any of the time of the Committee upon this subject, further than suggesting that we might have some explanation of the reason why the change was made, and also I think that the House would wish to know whether, if those who have been dispossessed have suffered any loss in consequence—and I think that those who know revising barristers know that probably the loss of this office is a serious matter for them—they are to receive compensation, such as I see is given to some other officers who will probably suffer under the provisions of the Bill.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The observations by way of criticism of my noble friend go rather to the root of the Bill as regards the subject of registration. Because, after all, one of the principles of the Bill is that the duties of registration should not be the somewhat haphazard business that they are at present, but they are placed in the hands of very responsible persons who will have the duty of doing all the work of the overseers and of placing persons on the Register. As regards the question of the revising barristers, I believe I am right in saying that the appointment of the revising barrister is from year to year. I do not know how far in the case of appoint-

801
ments of that kind questions of compensation arise; but might I direct the attention of my noble friend to subsection (6) of Clause 13? Under that, 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 himself, the Lord Chancellor can appoint barristers of seven years standing. I think I am right in saying that that is the definition of revising barrister; he must be of seven years standing. Of course, I am not giving any pledge, but if there are people who are qualified for posts, I think generally they are appointed to those posts. So that I suppose probably some of them at least will obtain work in that way. My noble and learned friend also went into the question of appeals, and rather suggested that some doubt was thrown on the competence of the registration officers because there was an appeal to the County Court. I do not so understand it. I suppose there must be appeals in these cases, especially if it has been established that any difficulty has arisen, or it is considered that the registration officer has made any mistake in law.
LORD SOUTHWARK LORD SOUTHWARK moved to add, at the end of subsection (3), the following proviso: "Provided that in every municipal borough having a population according to the last preceding census of not less than twenty thousand, the town clerk, unless he is the registration officer, shall, if he is willing to act, and subject to his being approved as aforesaid, be the deputy registration officer in regard to the area of that borough."
The noble Lord said: I hope to convince the Government and your Lordships that what I am asking is a wise, a practical, and a just proposal. The question of registration of voters is a very important one, and it is also important how the work is done and by whom. As the Bill now stands the registration officer for boroughs returning representatives is to be the town clerk of the borough. In counties the clerk of the county council is to be the registration officer for the whole county; but as there are in most counties many Parliamentary divisions, deputy registration officers will have to be appointed for each division. My desire is, as far as practicable, to do away with anything like patronage on the part of any of the officers connected with this electioneering work.
As the Bill stands, the registration officer will have to appoint the deputies, and it will, in my opinion, be a great relief to his mind if he can be relieved of the necessity of making the selection himself, and if it can be defined in the Bill who those deputies shall be, subject to the Local Government Board having power to veto or make alterations when necessary. We know that the preliminary lists are now prepared both in counties and boroughs by the overseers and their assistants. In boroughs, both county and non-county, they are prepared under the instruction of the town clerk of those boroughs, and in the remainder of the administrative counties by the clerk of the county council. In the revision of these lists, both for the purpose of Parliamentary and local government elections, a great deal of responsibility and a variety of work is at present thrown upon the town clerk, both of county and of non-county boroughs. It is in the non-county boroughs that are included in the Parliamentary areas that I desire that town clerks shall be named in the Bill as deputy registration officers.
The town clerk is a man of experience; he is generally a solicitor, and he knows the duties, and fewer mistakes will be made. Those who have had a good deal to do with elections know that there are questions raised as to who is appointed to this post, and who to that, by a returning officer or town clerk. We want as much as possible to do away with that patronage. It may be said that the town clerk as a rule will be the man appointed by the registration officer of the county, but why not have it stated in the Bill? Because you provide that if he is an incompetent man you have the power to go to the Local Government Board. Take the borough of Colchester, which I used to represent, a place with a population of 45,000. The town clerk of that borough can be passed over altogether by the registration officer of the county if he so chooses; or take Lancaster, or other towns included in county divisions. The man properly qualified to do the work there is the town clerk.
This matter was discussed in the House of Commons, and the President of the Local Government Board, Mr. Hayes Fisher, said—
"There is no body of men on whom not only the Local Government Board but other Government Departments are depending more at the present time than the town clerks. I believe that in almost all cases town clerks will be appointed, and that they will be the most efficient deputies

803
that could be appointed. I am very glad to be able to Bay this, but at the same time I think the choice must be left with the registration officer as to whom he will employ as his deputy. If this Amendment is accepted it will give a statutory right to the town clerk to be appointed; and although, as I say, the main body of town clerks are gentlemen of great efficiency and great capacity, yet here and there you might find someone singularly unfitted to be appointed."
But if your Lordships will look at subsection (3) of Clause 11 you will find these words, which do away with that fear on the part of the President of the Local Government Board—
"Any of the duties and powers of the registration officer may be performed and exercised by any deputy for the time being approved by the Local Government Board, and the provisions of this Act shall apply to any such deputy so far as respects any duties or powers to be performed or exercised by him as it applies to the registration officer."
Therefore, whether the town clerk is the deputy registration officer or whether somebody else outside is appointed, the appointment must be approved by the Local Government Board. If that is so, why not put in the man who has a just claim, and who has been doing the work for many years in all these boroughs, and have it defined in the Bill? Do not give the registration officer the trouble of having to look round for four, five, or six men to do the work when you can find men qualified to do it ready to hand. I think it would be an act of justice to the town clerk to have him appointed as I suggest.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 11, at end insert ("Provided that in every municipal borough having a population according to the last preceding census of not less than twenty thousand, the town clerk, unless he is the registration officer, shall, if he is willing to act, and subject to his being approved as aforesaid, be the deputy registration officer in regard to the area of that borough").—(Lord Southwark.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Before the noble Viscount replies, I venture to draw attention to the form in which my noble friend has moved Ms Amendment. I am not quite clear, but no doubt the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill will be able to tell me, what number of registration officers will have to be appointed in an ordinary county division; because if they are likely to be at all numerous, I do not see why my noble friend fixed his figure of indication to the registration officer so high as 20,000. There are a great number of ancient boroughs with a population of less than 20,000, and they might feel, I
804
think, somewhat chagrined, supposing the deputies to be so numerous that one had to be appointed to look after each of them and the area immediately surrounding them, if the town clerk was not specially indicated in their case, but only for the larger boroughs.
LORD SOUTHWARK: I have no particular desire to have any number mentioned. It was only that it might, so to speak, grease the wheels.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I only want to point out that, supposing the number of deputies required proved to be somewhat numerous, the indication of the town clerk for these larger boroughs might seem to point to somebody else for the smaller ones, which might, I think, have an unfortunate result.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My noble friend has made a very vigorous appeal on behalf of town clerks in boroughs of not less than 20,000. I understand that he is alluding only to boroughs in counties which would come in some county division, while the Bill provides that the registration officers in the counties shall be the clerks to the county councils, who shall be responsible for the whole of the work on the county. My noble friend seeks to provide that the town clerks in some of these smaller boroughs shall have a statutory position under the Bill, so that, practically speaking, they must be appointed under the registration officer.
I want to call the attention of my noble friend to the fact that the registration officer must be an important person under the Bill; he is responsible for the whole of the work in the county; and I submit to my noble friend as a man of business, that it is unwise to fix certain persons to hold that office within that county. I do not think that Lord Southwark, if he were given a duty of this kind to perform, would accept it unless he could choose the persons to work under him. I should not myself. It is not a question of the ability or the capacity of these gentlemen. No doubt a great many of them discharge their duties with the highest integrity and ability; but the Government do not want to hamper the clerks to the county councils in the discharge of their duties by insisting that they must have certain persons under them. There are circumstances in which such a course might be inconvenient.

805
I cannot answer the question of the noble Marquess as to the number of deputies, because the number must vary in different cases. But it would be disadvantageous and uneconomical if you were to tie the registration officer by this Statute to the form of administration he should set up in the county.
It will not be possible for the Government to accept the Amendment in the form in which my noble friend has put it forward, but I am in a position to give him an assurance that, in approving deputies under subsection (3) of Clause 11, the Local Government Board will lean strongly in favour of approving town clerks under the registration officer. I do not know whether some assurance of that kind will satisfy my noble friend.
LORD SOUTHWARK: Could we not have a few words inserted to that effect?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I trust that the noble Lord will accept my assurance. As a business man, I think he will see that it is not possible to accept his proposition.
LORD SOUTHWARK: In answer to the noble Viscount's last observation, I should like to say that if some words leading up to such an appointment could be put in I should be satisfied. However, if the noble Viscount says that such a course is impossible, but gives me the assurance he has just mentioned, I must accept that as the best I can get.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Registration duties.
12.—(1) It shall be the duty of the registration officer to compile the spring and autumn register, and to place, or cause to be placed, on the register in accordance with the rules set out in the First Schedule to this Act the names of those entitled to vote as Parliamentary electors or local government electors in his registration area, and to comply with any general or special directions which may be given by the Local Government Board with respect to the arrangements to be made by the registration officer for carrying out his duties as to registration.
If a registration officer refuses, neglects or fails without reasonable cause to perform any of his duties in connection with registration, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.
(2) His Majesty may by Order in Council prescribe the forms to be used for registration pur-
806
poses and any foes to be taken in connection therewith, and alter the rules contained in the First Schedule to this Act for the purpose of carrying this Act into full effect, or for carrying into effect any Act for the time being in force amending or affecting this Act.
The rules contained in the First Schedule to this Act and any Order so made shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I would like to ask the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill whether he does not think that subsection (2) of Clause 12 is rather a strong order. Here you have the most elaborate rules for carrying out this Act to the full effect, and you give His Majesty power by Order in Council to amend a very large portion of an Act of Parliament. I am not suggesting an Amendment now, but I want to ask my noble friend to consider the introduction on Report of words to the effect that such amendment should lie on the Table of both Houses.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Appeals.
13.—(1) An appeal shall lie to the county court, as defined by rules of court, from any decision of the registration officer on any claim or objection which has been considered by him under this Act, 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:
Provided that an appeal shall not lie where a claimant or objector has not availed himself of his opportunity of being heard by the registration officer on the claim or objection.
(2) An appeal shall lie on any point of law from any decision of the county court on 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.
(3) The right of voting of any person whose name is for the time being on the register shall not be prejudiced by any appeal pending under this section, and any vote given in pursuance of that right shall be as good as if no such appeal were pending, and shall not be affected by the subsequent decision of the appeal.
(4) 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 decison.
(5) On any appeal under this section the registration officer shall be deemed to be a party to the proceedings.
(6) 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

807
of dealing with appeals under this Act, to transact the business of the court with proper despatch, 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 all 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.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: This is the County Court clause, and it is impossible for me, having for so many years had to do with County Courts, to pass the clause without some observations. I am exceedingly sorry to see that the County Court is brought in at all in these matters, because of the interference with the ordinary business of the County Court, an interference which is evidently regarded as substantial because there is a provision put in for assistant Judges. I think it is to be regretted that the Court should be brought in at all in connection with political matters. I imagine that the great majority of the cases which will come before the County Court, especially on questions of fact, will be more or less in the nature of wrangles with political agents; and I think it is a very unfortunate thing that business of that kind should be brought into the County Court. Of course, my protest is futile as a protest, because it is most definitely recommended by the Speaker's Conference, and I fear it must be looked upon as a thing to be borne.
There are, however, some Amendments that I should like very much to see made in the clause, and I dare say if I put them down the noble Viscount will be good enough to consider them before the Report Stage. One of them is a matter upon which I think there is a pretty strong feeling among those interested in the subject, and that is that the appeal to the County Court should be upon points of law only and not upon fact. That, of course, would make a very great difference, because it would diminish the quantity of business and also remove the objectionable quality of business to which I referred a short time ago. The second Amendment is that the County Court Judge should appoint his own
808
deputy; it should not be an appointment even by so great an authority as the Lord Chancellor. It has been an old-standing practice, ever since the courts were instituted in 1849, for the County Court Judge to appoint his own deputy. Even under the Workmen's Compensation Act, when it is found necessary, and the Lord Chancellor consents that the County Court Judge should have assistance, the Lord Chancellor does not appoint the deputy but the County Court Judge does; and down in the country, in places like Leeds and Newcastle, the Judge knows his man and can appoint him; and he is paid by the day for the work he does.
The third point on which I should like at least to have an Amendment considered is that, whether it be a deputy or assistant Judge, he should do the business under this Act, and the County Court Judge should attend to his own business. Supposing it to be the case—I have heard it suggested—that some of the dispossessed revising barristers should be given this work, they are obviously experienced and would be th very men to do it. Why take away the Judge from work with which he is familiar in order that he should do unfamiliar work? The last Amendment is this, and it is one, I think, of serious importance. It is that the appeal, instead of going from the County Court Judge to the Court of Appeal, should go to the King's Bench Division, and that such appeal should be final. There are two-main reasons for that, and I think there is a third reason. One reason is that County Court appeals now go to the King's Bench Division. The second is that the King's Bench Division is the division which has always dealt with election cases. The third reason is one of a practical kind; it is that the Kings' Bench Division at present has plenty of time in which to do the work, and could dispose of it straightway. Anybody who looks at the lists published lately will see that this is the case. On the other hand the Court of Appeal, although it is no longer in arrear, has its list full up, and so will be fully occupied and will not be able to give attention to these cases, and I imagine it is desired that they should be disposed of as soon as possible. I propose to put down Amendments dealing with these four points, and I beg the noble Viscount to be good enough to consider them before the Report stage.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, after the word "Act" in subsection (1), to insert "or the placing of or refusal to place any mark against any name on the Register." The noble Earl said: I do not know whether this Amendment is of great importance, but I think it meets an oversight in the Bill, because on the question of appealing this Amendment would also give a right of appeal as regards placing marks against a voter's name. The second paragraph of Rule 2 and also Rule 21 of the First Schedule deal with this question of making marks against a voter's name, and I think my proposed words should be inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 7, after ("Act") insert ("or the placing of or refusal to place any mark against any name on the register").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: This is a small point. These words were in the Bill, I think, at one time, and were struck out on the ground that they were not necessary, and I am advised that they are not really necessary but are included in the larger words. In deference to the noble Earl I will have the matter inquired into and see whether really they are required; and, of course, if the noble Earl is anxious to put them in, I will not object.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, immediately before the proviso in subsection (1), to insert "but such rules of court shall provide that no fees be charged in the case of any such appeal, and that no costs be allowed to any party unless the Court is of opinion that the action of any party to the proceedings has been frivolous or vexatious." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to ensure that there shall be no power to allow costs against a man who endeavours to get on the Register or to prevent an unqualified man being put on the Register. At the present time, as your Lordships are aware, there are no costs payable when an individual goes before a revising barrister, unless his objection is frivolous and vexatious. Therefore, as the County Court is going to take the place of the revising barrister's court, it seems to me right that an individual should have an opportunity of claiming his privilege or right, whatever you call it, of voting or objecting to somebody else's vote on good
810
grounds. It is in order to protect the poor voter in connection with that right that I move the Amendment. Of course it will be open, if the objection or claim is vexatious or frivolous, to order the payment of costs, but not where the objection or claim is genuine and bona fide. I do not believe there will be very many cases in these Courts.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 10, at end insert ("but such rules of court shall provide that no fees be charged in the case of any such appeal, and that no costs be allowed to any party unless the court is of opinion that the action of any party to the proceedings has been frivolous or vexatious").—(Lord Gainford.)
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I am very familiar with the subject of fees in County Courts, and the difficulty that occurs to me is that County Court Registrars and other officers are paid by fees. The labourer is worthy of his hire. These officials will have work to do, and these particular workmen are extremely desirous of hire just now, because the state of litigation is not flourishing. I do not say whether that is an evil or not, but it is a very great evil to these officials who have to live on fees, and in fact many of them are in dire straits. If there are to be no fees paid by the appellants, then there should be some provision made for giving proper and moderate remuneration. With regard to what the noble Lord said about costs, I am not quite sure that I follow what the effect of this would be, but the costs and fees are regulated by the County Courts Rule Committee, and in case anybody should not trust, as I do from long experience, that Rule Committee, it must be remembered that everything they do is subject to the authority of the Lord Chancellor. They cannot pass a thing without his direct authority, and I think that, this being in his hands, it might very well be left to the Rule Committee to settle this matter.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am much obliged for what my noble friend, with his great experience, has said. I think it was felt in another place that there must be some limit to the number of appeals, and that therefore it was not at all unfair to allow the very small County Court fees which are charged. As to the second part of the Amendment, I am not quite sure that I feel the same difficulty as my noble friend. He has suggested that no costs be allowed

811
to any party unless the Court is of opinion that the action is frivolous. According to that suggestion if an appellant wins his case he could not get his costs which he would have got in the ordinary course, I understand. This would make his position rather worse than it was before. As to the words "vexatious" and "frivolous," I understand that it is very difficult often to say what is vexatious or frivolous. I think the Amendment as it stands would not work.
LORD GAINFORD: I am sorry that the noble Viscount cannot accept the Amendment. It was moved in the interests of the poor and genuine applicant who makes a genuine application, so that if he should sustain it he would not be subject to the costs. I agree with the noble and learned Lord who spoke before that the County Court has to be run. That, I think, should be left to another place. I cannot press the matter now in a thin House like this without stopping the Bill, and therefore I have no alternative but to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14:
Expenses of registration.
14.—(1) Any expenses properly incurred by a registration officer in the performance of his duties in relation to registration, including all proper and reasonable charges for trouble, care and attention in the performance of those duties, and any costs incurred by him as party to an appeal (in this Act referred to as registration expenses") shall be paid by the council whose clerk the registration officer is, subject, in cases where the registration area is not coterminous with or wholly contained in the area of that council to such contributions by the council of any other county or borough as the Local Government Board may direct.
Any such expenses shall be paid in the case of the council of a county out of the county fund, and if the case requires as expenses for special county purposes, and in the case of a council of a borough out of the borough fund or borough rate, or, where there is no borough fund or borough rate, out of the fund or rate out of which the ordinary expenses of the council of the borough are paid.
(2) The Treasury may frame a scale of registration expenses applicable to all or any class or classes of those expenses, and may alter the scale as and when they think fit.
Any expenses incurred by the registration officer of a class to which the scale is applicable shall be taken to be properly incurred if they do not exceed the maximum amount determined by or in accordance with the scale, and so far as they
812
do exceed that amount shall be taken not to have been properly incurred unless the excess is specially sanctioned by the council and the Treasury either before or after the expenses have been incurred.
If any question arises whether any expenses incurred by the registration officer of a class to which the scale is not applicable have been properly incurred or not, that question shall be referred to the Local Government Board, and the decision of the Board on the question shall be final.
(3) Any fees or other sum received by the registration officer in respect of his duties as such officer, other than sums paid to that officer in respect of his registration expenses, shall be accounted for by that officer and paid to the credit of the fund or rate out of which the expenses of that officer are paid.
(4) There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to the council of any county or borough in aid of the fund or rate out of which any registration expenses are paid by the council in accordance with this Act, one half of the amount so paid by the council.
(5) On the request of the registration officer of any registration area for an advance on account of registration expenses, the council whose clerk the registration officer is may, if they think fit, make such an advance to him of such amount and subject to such conditions as the council may approve.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, after the words "whose clerk the registration officer is" in subsection (1), to insert "or by whom he is appointed."
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 20, after ("is") insert ("or by whom he is appointed").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15:
Special provisions with respect to urban districts and London.
15.—(1) Where an urban district is coterminous with a registration area which is a parliamentary borough or is wholly contained in such area, this Part of this Act shall apply to that district as it applies to a municipal borough, with the substitution of the clerk of the urban district council for the town clerk, of the urban district council for the council of the borough, and of the general district rate for the borough fund or borough rate.
(2) Any reference to a municipal borough in this Part of this Act shall include a reference to a metropolitan borough and the City of London, with the substitution, as respects a metropolitan borough, of the clerk of the metropolitan borough council for the town clerk, and of the metropolitan borough council for the council of the municipal borough, and as respects the City of London, of the Secondary for the town clerk and of the common council for the council of the municipal borough.
Any registration expenses of a metropolitan borough council shall be paid as general expenses of the council, and any expenses of the common council shall be paid out of the general rate.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to delete from subsection (1) the word "and," and to add at the end of the subsection "and of the chairman of the council for the mayor."
Amendments moved—
Page 12, line 31, leave out ("and")
Page 12, line 32, at end insert ("and of the chairman of the council for the mayor").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16:
Compensation to existing officers.
16. Every existing overseer who suffers any direct pecuniary loss in consequence of this Act shall be entitled to have compensation paid to him by the council responsible for the payment of registration expenses, and in determining such compensation—

(a) regard shall be had to the conditions and other circumstances required by subsection (1) of section one hundred and twenty of the Local Government Act, 1888, in regard to cases of compensation under that section; and

(b) the compensation shall not exceed the limit therein mentioned; and

(c) the expression in subsection (1) of that section "The Acts and rules relating to Her Majesty's Civil Service" shall mean the Acts and rules relating to His Majesty's Civil Service which were in operation at the date of the passing of the Local Government Act, 1888; and

(d) the provisions of subsections (2) to (7) of section one hundred and twenty of that Act shall apply with such modifications (including the substitution of the "Local Government Board" for the "Treasury") as may be required, and including in subsection (2) the substitution of the words "next before the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and fourteen" for the words "next before the passing of this Act."

In this section the expression "overseer" includes any person executing any of the duties of overseer.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to omit the second and third words of the clause, and to substitute other words.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 5, leave out ("existing overseer") and insert ("person who is an assistant overseer at the time of the passing of this Act, and").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, after the words "entitled to have compensation paid to him," to insert "as registration expenses."
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 7, after ("him") insert ("as registration expenses.").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to omit from paragraph (d) the words "section one hundred and twenty of that Act," and to insert "the same section."
Amendments moved—
Page 13, line 22, after the second ("of") insert ("the same")
Page 13, lines 22 and 23, leave out ("one hundred and twenty of that Act").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to amend the last provision in the clause so that it would read. "In this section the expression 'assistant overseer' includes any person executing any of the duties of overseer and receiving payment therefor."
Amendments moved—
Page 13, line 30, leave out ("overseer") and insert ("assistant overseer")
Page 13, line 31, after ("overseer") insert ("and receiving payment therefor").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17:
Register for university constituencies.
17. The foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act shall not apply to university constituencies, but the governing body of every university forming, or forming part of, a university constituency shall cause a register to be kept in such form as they may direct of persons entitled to vote in respect of a qualification at their university, and shall make the register available for the purpose of university elections for the constituency:
Provided that the governing body may direct that a person who before the passing of this Act has received a degree, but was not entitled to vote in respect thereof, shall have no right to be registered unless he makes a claim for the purpose.
The governing body of any such university may charge such fee as they think fit, not exceeding one pound, for registration to any person who receives a degree at their university after the passing of this Act, or who has received a degree before the passing of this Act but was not entitled to vote in respect thereof.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, after the word "form," to add "and made up, if desired, to such dates." The noble Viscount said: This is a very small Amendment. The University of Cambridge desires to have the Register made up to certain dates, and not continuously.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 35, after ("form") insert ("and made up, if desired, to such dates).—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, after "constituency" and immediately before the proviso, to insert "and shall on the application of any person allow that person at all reasonable times to inspect and take extracts from the said Register." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which I hope the Government may accept. It will enable the Register to be examined to see that if an individual has a business qualification he shall not exercise that as well as the University qualification. The Amendment is really required to make effective the alteration as to plural voters already incorporated in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 2, at end insert ("and shall on the application of any person allow that person at all reasonable times to inspect and take extracts from the said register").—(Lord Gainford.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I accept that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in the last paragraph of the clause, to leave out "for" and to substitute "in respect of." The noble Viscount said: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 8, leave out ("for") and insert ("in respect of").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed; and to be again in Committee on Monday.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.
NATIONAL INSURANCE (UNEMPLOYMENT) BILL.
Committee of the Whole House (which stands appointed for Tuesday next) put off to Tuesday the 29th instant.
Moved, That the House do adjourn until 4.15 p.m. on Monday next.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before eight o'clock.