REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.

HL Deb 28 January 1918 vol 27 cc1176-289

Amendments reported (according to Order).

Clause 1:—

Parliamentary franchises (men).

1.—(1) A man shall be entitled to be registered as a parliamentary elector for a constituency (other than a university constituency) if he is of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity and—

1. (a) has the requisite residence qualification, or
2. (b) has the requisite business premises qualification.

(2) A man, in order to have the requisite residence qualification or business premises qualification for a constituency—

1. (a) must during the last fourteen days of the qualifying period be residing in premises in the constituency, or occupying business premises in the constituency as the case may be; and
2. (b) must during the whole of the qualifying period have resided in premises, or occupied business premises, as the case may be, in the constituency, or in another constituency within the same parliamentary borough or parliamentary county, or within a parliamentary borough or parliamentary county contiguous to that borough or county, or separated from that borough or county by water, not exceeding at the nearest point six miles in breadth, measured in the case of tidal water from low-water mark.

For the purposes of this subsection the administrative county of London shall be treated as a parliamentary borough.

(3) The expression "business premises" in this section means land or other premises of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds occupied for the purpose of the business profession or trade of the person to be registered.

LORD FARRER moved, at the beginning of subsection (1), after "A man." to insert "including any Peer." The noble Lord said: I have put down this Amendment at this late stage because during the deeply interesting debates which have occurred in your Lordships' House certain definite points have emerged which were not clear at their inception. The noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, in Committee, ill answer to a question of mine, stated that the disability of a Peer to vote for a Member of the other House rested upon Common Law, not upon any Statute. I notice that at the recent meeting of the Judges with the Lord Chief Justice starting on his Mission to America the Lord Chief Justice was defined as "the custodian of the Common Law." I hope I may therefore find in him some sympathy with our potential disabilities, even though he be in another land. Moreover, the Lord Chancellor has told us during our debates that— The whole policy of the Bill is that residence in the constituency, even though not as a matter of right but on sufferance, shall be enough to confer the right to vote. If so, and this be really the democratic country which we have so frequently during these debates been assured that it is, there ought not, I think, to be one special class of persons, and one only, excluded; and I desire, if possible, to make this clear by Statute. If our exclusion rests on a Court of Law, we depend on the Judges; and, excellent as our Law Courts are, and greatly as I value the (I think it is) five Lord Chancellors who are members of this House, we ought not to hang, like Mahomet's coffin, dependent on the Judges' decisions. I say "hang like Mahomet's coffin." because, until the Report of my noble friend Lord Bryce on the reconstitution of this House is received, we do not know where we, as individuals, stand in this matter. Let us, therefore, make the position clear here and now. Another technical argument, I think, in favour of our having the vote is that the House of Commons itself no longer passes the annual Standing Order forbidding Peers to take part in elections, showing that this branch of the Legislature does not regard our individual influence as a menace. It has struck me that it is possible, when they dropped that Resolution years ago, that they thought that perhaps a newspaper editor or a financial magnate was more powerful to-day than a Peer.

The noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, in his most interesting speech, started from the axiom that a vote is a privilege and not a right. The theory is attractive, because you can deduce from it anything that you wish in the way of special privileges being allowed to certain classes—and an English peer represents nobody except himself—but it seems to me in direct contradiction to the Lord Chancellor's view of the Bill. I should rather say that the Bill, which, of course, is, as the noble Earl the Leader of the House told us, a revolution, was drawn on the theory of "one resident soul, one vote"; and the main difference, except that of machinery (machinery being no in-considerable one, but rather a lawyer's than a politician's obstacle) was to decide at what age a soul deserved to obtain its privilege—if that be the right term.

But even if we assume the noble Viscount's axiom that a vote is a privilege and not a right, he will hardly deny that in the particular case which we are discussing that is, a vote for a Member to sit in our British Parliament—the historical aspect of such a vote is to be found in the origin of the House of Commons, and that was the difficulties of the Executive in finding moneys to carry on expensive foreign wars; a bargain of the Barons though they did not express it in those exact words that taxation and representation must go together. They called it "Redress of grievances before Supply." Therefore I rest my case for pressing this Amendment on grounds somewhat higher than technicalities, or even past history, though in my opinion this House ought to be the guardian of historical traditions.

If there is one thing more striking than another which emerged from the admirable speeches on the woman suffrage question in Committee, it was the testimony of the interest which woman took in the financial affairs of which Parliament is the ultimate custodian—the difficulty of feeding and bringing up a family. It has been said that, "Men care more about wages, and women are more influenced by prices." I am sure that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, which he has piloted so clearly and courteously through its difficult Committee stage, is the first man in the world to recognise this. His name is honoured in thousands of humble English homes to-day because his great namesake gave the people cheap and plentiful food—brought, as we are told in his biography, slowly and by stages to the conviction that it was the greatest and most beneficient gift that a politician could confer on them, greater than the vote itself. I think I am not wrong in saying that in his life he expressed the conviction that the only safe way of avoiding revolution for the politician was constantly to have the consumer's interest at heart, because the producer would always look after himself.

And can we look round to-day and not see that the working class shortage of food is teaching them the same lesson after two generations of plenty that the first duty of good government is good public finance, that taxes are an evil and not a good, and that great public expenditure always reacts most unfavourably upon the daily life of the poorest classes? And yet your Lordships' House as a House, since the historic night when the Budget was rejected, has virtually ceased to be able directly to control finance, that great engine which is the machine of government. The House of Commons controls the machine. Are we also to be debarred as individual members from voting for those who are masters of this machine?

During all these long debates, I have hardly heard a word about the fact, which at this moment is paramount in nine-tenths of the people's minds—the serious labour unrest, prices rising faster than wages, which is really a financial and food difficulty brought about by the hideous tragedy through which we are living. In the far more difficult times ahead of us when we have to pay the interest on the £5,000,000,000 of new National Debt, are we to have no voice in choosing the men who are to deal with it, and yet as a body equally to be debarred from discussing it except platonically? I cannot imagine a more anomalous or more humilating position, except possibly to be the husband of a Peeress who has such a vote through her husband's local government qualification, while the husband himself is treated as an idiot or a felon and deprived of it by the lawyers who deal with those classes of our fellow subjects. Fures quid femina possit—when the Bill is through we may whistle for our "privilege."

The noble Earl who so eloquently leads this House spoke in his opening address this session of seeing many constitutional theories swept to the winds in the days immediately ahead of us. I hope he was not adumbrating a single-Chamber Government in these ominous words; for I do not think our experience either to-day or in Cromwell's time is particularly gratifying in that direction. Still less am I desirous of seeing swept away that which to my mind is the greatest principle of all in the stability of our Constitution—namely, as I have said before, that taxation and representation should go as closely as possible together. Upon it has been built up the prosperity and happiness of our country as we know it, because in my view it is really based on what is called, in to-day's slang phrase, "equality of sacrifice." Let us avoid the suspicion that we desire to form such a class separate from the rest of the nation, and take our part in Peace as your Lordships' House have so nobly done in War on a par with the average mass of our fellow-citizens.

The late Master of Balliol used to have a dry saying which, in these days of Hymns of Hate, might be quoted with advantage— Almost everybody is a very good sort of fellow if you only know him. If we can claim no special privileges as Peers—and I believe there are very few left except one—namely, that of killing two deer in the King's parks on the way to Parliament, which might be useful in these times—we shall in my view do much to preserve the great and at the present moment deserved popularity of this House, if we can see our way not to differentiate ourselves from other classes of the population. I think, at any rate, it will be most important that our action in this matter should not be misconstrued. I certainly do not misconstrue it myself, after the admiration with which I have listened to these debates; but it may be misunderstood if we do not make it clear by Statute that we claim no special exemptions for ourselves.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 7, after ("man") insert ("including any Peer").—(Lord Farrer.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

The noble Lord has made the proposition that Peers shall be enabled to vote for Members of Parliament. I thought it possible that that proposal might come from some quarter of this House, although I was a little surprised at the actual quarter in which it did arise. There is no doubt, of course, that the position of a Peer may be to some extent altered by the great changes made in the franchise by this Bill. There is further the curious anomaly, if you may so call it, that a Peer may not vote, although a Peeress may—that a Peer is, to put at the highest, merely a sort of conduit pipe to convey this great power, whereas he himself is debarred from exercising it.

The other point raised by the noble Lord no doubt deserves to be weighed, and that is that since the passing of the Parliament Act this House has had no control at all over finance; that the contribution of this House or of individual members of it is no doubt extremely large; and that in that respect they might fairly claim to exercise one vote, or possibly in some cases two votes, in order to have some sort of control over the expenditure and raising of the money. On the other hand, of course, the Common Law reasons, if I may so put it, why Peers have not been able to exercise the vote is that they have certain special privileges, one of those being that they have the right to deal with measures in this House and that they form the Second Chamber of this Realm. Of course, one curious point has to be noted in regard to the position of Bishops. When a man is made a Bishop he keeps his vote, but when he enters this House as a Peer of Parliament he loses his vote.

I do not wish to take up on the part of the Government any very rigid attitude in this matter. I ought to point out, of course, that there is a certain Resolution which used to be passed, I think, every year in another place—it is, of course, only a Resolution—"that no peer of the realm, except such peers of Ireland as shall for the time being be actually selected, and shall not have declined to serve, for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, hath any right to give his vote in the election of any member to serve in parliament." Of course, there is no doubt that if this proposal of the noble Lord became a portion of this Bill when it became an Act, the other House would alter that Resolution; and the noble Lord has pointed out already that the fear of excessive influence of Peers at elections has been removed from another place and they no longer pass that Sessional Resolution.

The only point for your Lordships to consider is whether it is wise for your Lordships to press for this particular right to vote for Members of the other House, considering the to some extent privileged position which members of this House already enjoy. The only other point which I would like to add is this, that I suppose if certain changes are made in the composition of this House and members of the House or a certain number of them are elected, the members of the other House will claim the right to vote for them. But perhaps this is a premature speculation, because we have up to now had no proposals put before us for an alteration in the composition of this House. Therefore I would respectfully, and perhaps I should say humbly, suggest to your Lordships that considering the position of this House, and the rights which your Lordships enjoy, it would perhaps be more prudent not to insist upon the right to vote for members of the other House. It is a matter on which the Government do not take a very rigid or defined line, and it is one entirely for the consideration of your Lordships.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I hope that the House will on the whole decide to accept the advice which it has just received from the noble Viscount, Lord Peel. It is quite true, as he stated towards the close of his observations, that the whole of this question is practically bound to come under review when the question of any reform in the composition of your Lordships' House comes to be considered by Parliament; and I cannot help thinking that it would be wise to postpone until then any further consideration of this particular disability, for which, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, as matters are, we do receive at any rate some compensation.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT moved to omit from subsection (2) (a) the words "during the last fourteen days" and to insert "on the last day." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment deals with an alteration which was accepted by the Government on the proposal of the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown. I dare say the reason for my Amendment, or for the acceptance of the original Amendment by the Government, would not be very clear to your Lordships. It was directed to an object which we all have at heart—namely, to defeat the possible "swallow" voter. Lord Camperdown thought that by insisting upon a residence of fourteen days before January 1 and July 1, that object would be effectively attained. The Government accepted that Amendment possibly without realising, as I myself did not realise, that in many counties the old quarter-days of January 6 and July 6 are in use for changes of residence instead of January 1 and July 1 in other counties. The result of imposing a residence of fourteen days before the qualifying date—before January 15, and July 15—would in the counties I refer to disfranchise a large number of people who move on January 6, or July 6. For this reason I have attempted to meet the noble Earl, though I do not think I have succeeded, by transferring the fourteen days from the period preceding the qualifying date to a period after the qualifying date. The counties in which January 6 and July 6 are used universally are those of Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridge, Huntingdonshire, and Lincolnshire. The old Quarter Days are also used in Bedfordshire. Berkshire, Oxfordshire, and Yorkshire. Your Lordships will see that if we leave the Bill as it is, with the fourteen days in, we shall in those nine counties disfranchise for a period which we none of us wish a very considerable number of people who are moving from their present homes to new ones. I believe the Bill really was in its best form as it came up to your Lordships from the Commons, with a provision by which a man would not be entitled to remain on the Register unless he resided for thirty days after the qualifying date. If it would meet Lord Camperdown, I should be quite willing to recur to the Commons proposal, and at the same time, if he wished it, to add eight days before the qualifying date. In that way we can do everything possible to guard against the "swallow" voter. I put down really alternative Amendments. There are these two which should be read together—

VISCOUNT PEEL

Are the first two to be read together?

VISCOUNT HARCOCRT

Yes, and I have another in Clause 7 on page 5, line 31. That should be read with the first of these two. I do not attach importance as to which is accepted, and I am quite willing, if it would suit the noble Lord, to recur to the Commons form or to take the Commons form plus eight days in advance of the qualifying date. I only wish to avoid this large disfranchisement which would occur in the nine counties I have mentioned.

VISCOUNT PEEL

Is your second Amendment in line 16 [after ("period") insert ("and for fourteen days immediately thereafter")] to be read with the Amendment in line 15?

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

Yes.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 15, leave out ("during the last fourteen days") and insert ("on the last day").—(Viscount Harcourt.)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

As it was on my motion in Committee that your Lordships struck out the words "on the last day" and inserted "during the last fourteen days"—that is the fourteen days of the qualifying period—perhaps I may be allowed in a few words to explain to your Lordships why, so far as I am personally concerned. I am unable to accept the proposal of the noble Viscount and would suggest that your Lordships should adhere to the decision at which you have previously arrived. That decision was based on this ground. There was a certain period of residence which was necessary, and the question was whether that residence should take place before the qualifying period, or, some portions at all events, after the qualifying period. I need not go into the arguments I advanced to your Lordships then, but your Lordships came to the conclusion that "during the last fourteen days of the qualifying period" were the correct words, and that the residence should have taken place at that time, so that it would be certain that the person who thus obtained the right to be on the Register had actually completed the condition on which he was to vote. I must say it seems rather extraordinary to propose to strike out the words which after consideration the Government accepted from me—to strike them out at this the next stage of the Bill—and to insert the words which your Lordships struck out in Committee. Why does the noble Viscount propose to strike this out? The reason is that it does not suit certain persons. I am sorry to say that I believe it is impossible for Parliament to make a Regulation to suit everybody, and therefore you must take the general opinion. If there are persons whom it does not suit, I submit to your Lordships that it is for them to alter their practice and not to call upon Parliament to withdraw its decision and to establish something else. It would not be possible to suit everybody. There would be another set of people who would have a different objection. I venture to hope that the noble Viscount who considered the case on the previous occasion will adhere to the decision he then arrived at and retain the words in the Bill.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I asked the noble Viscount opposite whether the two Amendments were connected together, because if they are they appear to me to have rather a different effect from that which he suggested. He wants to leave out "during the last fourteen days" and to insert "on the last day." Then he wishes to add" and for fourteen days immediately there-after."Would not that have the effect of lengthening the period of qualification? That is to say, instead of the period being six months, it would be six months and fourteen days. It would make the period of qualification longer than the House of Commons intended.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

I think that as the Bill came from the House of Commons it provided, in order to avoid the "swallow" voter, that he had to remain in his house for "thirty days thereafter." It was not argued, I think, that this made it a seven months qualification.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I think the noble Viscount is not quite right in his recollection. If he were, it would clearly mean a seven months qualification instead of six. What was suggested was this, that if anybody came to the residence where he was actually going to get his vote within thirty days of the end of the qualifying period he must, in order to show that he was a genuine person and not a "swallow" remain till thirty days had elapsed, although those thirty days might overlap the actual period of qualification. But the noble Viscount's Amendment is quite different. It applies generally to everybody, and he suggests that everybody must be in his residence on the last day of the qualifying period and for an additional fourteen days. That would apply far more widely than merely to the swallow voter, and it would establish a totally new period of qualification—namely, six months and a fortnight, instead of six months.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

It may be the effect. That was not my intention.

VISCOUNT PEEL

Probably not; but I am afraid that is the effect, and therefore I think the noble Viscount would hardly press it.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

Then, my Lords, I am forced to alter the Amendment in some way to meet the objection of the noble Viscount. Let me put the case to him. Surely we are anxious to prevent the swallow voter. At the same time you cannot wish, in preventing the creation of swallow voters, to disfranchise a large number of people who happen to move from one home to another—a genuine move—in all of the nine counties which I have specified. Possibly, then, I may be allowed to move to omit the word "fourteen" and insert "eight" That, I think, would meet the case, because then if a man moved on January 6 and he had to be there eight days, it would bring him to the 14th, which is the day before the qualifying day. I ask the leave of your Lordships to withdraw my Amendment and immediately to move to leave out "fourteen" and insert "eight."

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I did not wish to interrupt the noble Viscount, but, on a point of older, are we allowed to speak more than once on Report?

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

No. I am sorry I should have transgressed the rule, but it was almost necessary for me to make an explanation. I should have asked your Lordships' leave before I did so.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I do not know whether, by leave of the House, I may put a question to the noble Viscount. I am not quite clear what his Amendment is. "Fourteen days" occur in both his Amendments. Which "fourteen" does he wish to omit?

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

In the first Amendment. I drop the second one altogether.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

If the noble Viscount proposes to move something else, the Amendment before your Lordships should be withdrawn so that we should have a proper Question before us.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

I now move formally to leave out in line 15 the word "fourteen" in order to insert "eight."

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 15, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("eight").—(Viscount Harcourt.)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I object to the word "eight" being substituted. Why should you not have the fourteen days which are necessary for him to make a qualification? Why should not these fourteen days be the fourteen days preceding the qualifying period? That is perfectly plain, and if you put in eight days then there is a period after the qualifying period during which it will be necessary to watch this man and to ascertain that he does fulfil the condition of his vote. I must oppose the Amendment.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I think it is a little inconvenient that a change of this kind should take place at this stage. I did not deal with the general position because I thought that it was necessary to deal with the exact point of the Amendment, and that it was unnecessary to go further. If the noble Viscount limits it to eight days only, a diminution from the fourteen days, I think it is obvious that the swallow voter might be rather stronger. Assuming, however, that he does so—and I understand the proposal of the noble Viscount is that, if a man goes into residence on the last day of the qualifying period, he then must stay seven days afterwards in order to make up the eight days—

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

Or I would except the House of Commons' suggestion of thirty days.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I am not quite sure what the exact proposal is, and I must deal with one Amendment at a time. Would it not be much better on the whole, your Lordships having gone fully into the matter during the Committee stage, to abide by the decision which was then arrived at. The noble Viscount is very experienced in these matters and, with great ingenuity, has been able to find out certain cases in which this arrangement might work some hardship. But if we put in this Amendment it might be possible that other hardships would arise. After all, the proposal inserted by your Lordships is a perfectly clean and definite date by which time the whole operation is over. The suggestion of the noble Viscount, and also the suggestion which came from another place, was that there ought to be an examination as to what went on after the qualifying period, as to whether a man had or had not left his residence. That would give rise to a good deal of difficulty in administration. I believe it was on this ground that your Lordships decided that the period, whatever it was, that a man must be in continuous residence before the end of the qualifying period, should be a short period of fourteen days, and should end at the last day of the end of the qualifying period. The matter being so balanced, and having been fully discussed in Committee, I would suggest that the House might abide by the decision which it arrived at after full consideration.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I cannot say that I think the result is extremely satisfactory. For the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, has taken the view that people will be incommoded by the retention of the fourteen days in the Bill, whereas, on the statement of my noble friend behind me, they will be not merely inconvenienced but deprived of the vote, and this deprivation would apply to a quarter of the counties in England, and about half the areas of all the counties. It is hardly possible to speak of that as a small inconvenience suffered by a few persons. Nor is it reasonable to suppose that the lifelong customs of people in these districts to complete their tenancy at a particular date are likely to be easily altered merely because your Lordships pass a particular clause in a Bill. After all, the whole of these dates, the fifteen and fourteen days, have been adopted in order to suit public convenience. They represent a fortnight after what was presumed to be quarter-day, and if in a large part of the country it is not quarter-day, you defeat your object and you cause a great deal more inconvenience, because you practically disfranchise in a very large area of the country every person who changes his residence.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

I own I have some sympathy with the Amendment, and for this reason. In order to obtain the necessary residence qualification you must reside during the last fourteen days upon your premises. The noble Viscount pointed out that this would disfranchise a very large number of people. He quoted nine counties where the regular practice is to vacate their dwellings in that very period. Among them were the two counties of Lincolnshire and Yorkshire which, together, cover an enormous extent of country, and I understand there are seven additional counties to be taken into consideration as well. That seems to me to be taking a course which must have the effect, as the noble Viscount points out, of practically, to all intents and purposes, disfranchising an enormous number of people, because it is obvious if they are just about to change their home they cannot reside there during those fourteen days. Whether it is right or wrong that they should be disfranchised in that way is a matter for the House to consider, but I cannot help saying that it seems to me to create a certain difficulty in that respect.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

VISCOUNT PEEL moved an Amendment in subsection (2) (a), to leave out "be" and insert "have been." The noble Viscount said: This is a purely drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 16, leave out ("be") and insert ("have been").—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in subsection (2) (b), to leave out all the woods after "constituency" where that word secondly occurs down to "by" ["by water"] and to insert "contiguous thereto or separated therefrom." The noble Earl said: This is purely a drafting Amendment, consequential on the decision already taken.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 4, leave out from ("constituency") to ("by") in line 8, and insert ("contiguous thereto or separated therefrom").—(The Earl of Selborne.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

These Amendments of the noble Earl, as he says, are mainly consequential, and he will not expect me to say very much on them. But I should like to make a reservation in favour of one Amendment which, I think, can hardly be called consequential, and that is the one standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

That is the big Amendment.

VISCOUNT PEEL

Yes; and I think I ought to say this. Though this Amendment of the noble Earl may be considered consequential, it has this effect, which I have no doubt the noble Earl has considered (I do not know whether it has been generally considered), that it would mean an increase in the area of successive occupation. I think it will have that effect, but, subject to that remark, I do not wish to say anything further.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The EARL OF SELBORNE moved to leave out the last two words of subsection (2) "parliamentary borough" and to insert "single constituency." The noble Earl said: "This is also a drafting Amendment."

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 12, leave out ("parliamentary borough") and insert ("single constituency").—(The Earl of Selborne.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2:

University Franchise (Men).

2. A man shall be entitled to be registered as a parliamentary elector for a university constituency if he is of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity, and has received a degree (other than an honorary degree) at any university forming, or forming part of, the constituency, or in the case of the Scottish Universities is qualified under section twenty-seven of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, or in the case of the University of Dublin has obtained a scholarship or fellowship in the University whether before or after the passing of this Act.

VISCOUNT PEEL moved to insert, after "University of Dublin has," the words "either received a degree (other than an honorary degree) at the University, or has." The noble Viscount said: This is to make it clear that the qualification in respect of scholarships and fellowships at the Irish University is in addition to the ordinary degrees.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 24, after ("has") insert ("either received a degree (other than an honorary degree) at the university, or has").—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3:

Local Government Franchise (Men).

3. A man shall be entitled to be registered as a local government elector for a local government electoral area if he is of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity, and—

1. (a) is during the last fourteen days of the qualifying period occupying, as owner or tenant, any land or premises in that area, and
2. (b) has, during the whole of the qualifying period, so occupied any land or premises in that area, or, if that area is not an administrative county or a county borough, in any administrative county or county borough in which the area is wholly or partly situate:

Provided that—

1. (i) for the purposes of this section a man who himself inhabits any dwelling house by virtue of any office, service or employment, shall if the dwelling-house is not inhabited by any person under whom he serves in such office, service, or employment, be deemed to occupy the house as a tenant; and
2. (ii) for the purposes of this section the word tenant shall not include a person who occupies a room or rooms as a lodger except where such room or rooms are let to him in an unfurnished state.

VISCOUNT PEEL

My next is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 30, leave out ("is") and insert ("has").—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT moved, in paragraph (a), to leave out "during the last fourteen days" and to substitute "on the last day." The noble Viscount said: It is I think, necessary to leave out "during the last fourteen days" in this clause. We are dealing with local government voters, and their qualification is different from the Parliamentary franchise. There is no question here of the likelihood of "swallow" voters. The noble Viscount will admit that for the local government vote the voter must occupy for the whole of the qualifying six months in the electoral area as owner or tenant, and that there can be no object in moving in in the last fourteen days. I think these words were retained in error after Lord Camperdown's Amendment had been made.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 30, leave out ("during the last fourteen days") and insert ("on the last day").—(Viscount Harcourt.)

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I very much regret to say that I did not hear—there was talking going on here—what the noble Viscount said; but I should propose to retain the words as we put them in in Committee.

EARL RUSSELL

Is it not obvious that you may get "swallow" voters in the shape of wives?

VISCOUNT PEEL

I think the noble Viscount has to some extent forgotten the fact that successive occupation applies to local government as well as to Parliamentary votes, and if you are to have successive occupation in the one case I think it would be well to keep the same period in the other. I agree that successive occupation is more limited in the case of local government voters, but supposing an area, for instance, is a smaller area than the whole county, an owner or occupier could move freely from one place to another within the larger area. Therefore I think we must have some limiting days as in the case of the Parliamentary franchise.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

I withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in paragraph (a), to substitute "occupied" for "occupying." The noble Viscount said: This is purely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 31, leave out ("occupying") and insert ("occupied").—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT PEEL moved an Amendment in proviso (i). The noble Viscount said: This is not quite a drafting Amendment. It is inserted to meet the point of the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, and it makes it clear that a person will be entitled to the service vote unless he is actually living with the person under whom he serves.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 2 and 3, leave out ("any person under whom he serves") and insert ("the person in whose service he is").—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT PEEL

My next Amendment is purely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 7, leave out ("not").—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT PEEL

The next Amendment is also drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 8, leave out ("except") and insert ("only").—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4:

Franchises (women).

4.—(1) A woman shall be entitled to be registered as a parliamentary elector for a constituency (other than a university constituency) if she—

1. (a) has attained the age of thirty years; and
2. (b) is not subject to any legal incapacity; and
3. (c) is entitled to be registered as a local government elector in respect of the occupation of land or premises in that constituency, or is the wife of a husband entitled to be so registered.

(2) A woman shall be entitled to be registered as a parliamentary elector for a university constituency if she has attained the age of thirty years and either would be entitled to be so registered it she were a man or, so long as at any university women are not admitted to degrees, has passed such examinations and kept such residence at that university as would entitle her to receive a degree if she were a man.

(3) A woman shall be entitled to be registered at a local government elector for any local government electoral area—

1. (a) where she would be entitled to be so registered it she were a man; and
2. (b) where she is the wife of a man who is entitled to be so registered in respect of premises in which they both reside, and she has attained the age of thirty years and is not subject to any legal incapacity.

For the purpose of this provision, a naval or military voter who is registered in respect of a residence qualification, which he would have had but for his service, shall be deemed to be resident in accordance with the qualification.

LORD HARRIS moved, after "occupation" in subsection 1 (c), to insert "in that constituency." The noble Lord said: This is an attempt to meet the danger, which I foreshadowed, of large numbers of female "swallow" voters being created in a contiguous constituency. When I said on the Committee stage that it would be desirable to put in some bar to that risk, the noble Viscount, Lord Harcourt, pointed out that we must take care that we did not shut out the male local government voter from exercising his local government franchise as regards a piece of ground he might be occupying, however small. I think that difficulty has been got over now, because the bar is only upon the female with regard to her Parliamentary franchise. The male voter can occupy a piece of land as small as possible and he will have the privilege of his local government vote, but his wife will not be qualified under the husband's qualification unless the occupation is of the value of £5. Her Parliamentary qualification will be in respect only of an occupation of the value of £5.

Amendment moved.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

I agree with the noble Lord that this is an improvement. It would disfranchise a comparatively small number of women, no doubt. But it is contrary to the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference and, as the noble Lord probably remembers, it was rejected by the House of Commons.

VISCOUNT PEEL

This Amendment, I understand, was brought in by my noble friend behind me because the matter was raised during the Committee stage, and it was strongly pressed that it would be possible, and rather easy, to create a certain number of women Parliamentary voters. Of course, the question does not arise so much as regards men, because I do not think any one has ever wanted to create a large number of faggot local government votes, especially with a largely extended franchise. The noble Lord has limited it, as he said, so that a man does not lose his local government vote for a piece of land, however small; but as a woman's vote depends on the local government vote it would be, no doubt, comparatively easy to create a large number of women voters in respect of land.

LORD HARRIS

Parliamentary voters.

VISCOUNT PEEL

The noble Lord limits it to land, and excepts votes in respect of other qualifications. I said on the former occasion that the Government did recognise that there was considerable difficulty in the question. I think the noble Lord has also successfully met, as the noble Viscount said, his objection. Therefore if the noble Lord meets the sense of the House in the Amendment, I propose to offer no opposition.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I hope that the noble Viscount will accept this Amendment. It appears to be profoundly reasonable, and my noble friend who has moved it has taken immense trouble to meet all the difficulties mentioned in Committee.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 3, lines 16 and 17, leave out ("in that constituency") and insert ("(not being a dwelling-house) of a yearly value of not less than £5 or of a dwelling-house").—(Lord Harris.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD PARKER moved to omit from subsection (2) all words after "or," and to insert "has been admitted to and passed the final examination, and kept under the conditions required of women by the University the period of residence necessary for a man to obtain a degree at any University forming or forming part of a University constituency which did not at the time the examination was passed admit women to degrees."

The noble and learned Lord said: I think that I can explain the object of this Amendment in a very few words. If your Lordships will look for a moment at the words which I propose to strike out you will recollect that they were introduced at the instance of the noble Viscount who had charge of the Bill in Committee, and his object in introducing them was quite clear. It was in order to enable the Universities to give the University vote to women who were otherwise qualified, but who, at Oxford and Cambridge, had not got a degree merely because the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge do not confer degrees on women. I think that that object recommended itself to the unanimous approval of the House, but I doubted at the time, and I still doubt, whether the words which were actually inserted will have the desired effect, and I propose to strike them out and to add a form of words which I think will have the desired effect.

Looking at the words proposed and those proposed to be struck out, your Lordships will see that in the first place the alternative qualification is a qualification which lasts only so long as either Oxford or Cambridge does not confer degrees upon women. I think that is rather resented at the Universities as they could not confer degrees upon women at any future time without disfranchising everybody who is admitted under this Bill. That is a position which we think is undesirable. We do not want our hands to be fettered in that way, and to have to disfranchise people in order to grant degrees. It is perfectly true, of course, that the women who are so disfranchised may be given degrees by the University, but it does not follow that the conditions on which degrees are open to women will be the same as those which women have fulfilled in order to get the vote. Further than that, as your Lordships know, neither Oxford nor Cambridge grant degrees without the payment of a considerable amount of money in the way of fees and otherwise, and it would be unfair to ask women who have had votes for so many years to pay large sums to the University on the condition of continuing themselves in that position. That is the first objection, and I think that it is met by the form of words which I suggest.

The second objection is this. With regard to examinations at Cambridge, I believe that, of the two colleges, Girton has always adopted and insisted upon a previous examination being passed, but Newnham has not. In the case of the latter the students have been admitted to the higher examinations on the strength that they have passed examinations which the University considers equivalent to the previous examination insisted upon in the case of Girton, so that the reference to the examination which qualifies men for degrees might operate in the case of Girton but certainly would not in the case of Newnham.

With regard to residence I doubt whether at Cambridge any woman does comply with the conditions of residence which are necessary in the case of a man. Therefore I think that the reference should be by means of the words that I propose to substitute. They will, I think, meet all these points. I propose really to make two tests. The women must have passed a final examination. That will apply in the case of Cambridge, because no woman is ever admitted to any final examination except the Tripos. Secondly, each woman must have resided under the conditions required by the University in the case of women for the period necessary to qualify a man. I think those two matters will set everything at rest, and that everybody will be enfranchised. I do not know whether these words apply to Oxford, but I see no reason why they should not.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 22, leave out from ("or") to the end of the subsection and insert ("has been admitted to and passed the final examination, and kept under the conditions required of women by the university the period of residence, necessary for a man to obtain a degree at any university forming or forming part of a university constituency which did not at the time the examination was passed admit women to degrees ").—(Lord Parker.)

EARL RUSSELL

I have a very clear recollection of the discussion in Committee on this point, and I am convinced that the noble and learned Lord has not said anything in this Amendment that he does not intend, but I should like to be quite clear as to what is the actual intention of the Amendment. On the particular point of residence, if I recollect aright, in the discussion in Committee—the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill no doubt has a proper recollection of it—it was suggested that the residence required at the women's colleges was not the same as the residence required at the men's colleges, and that therefore they would not be qualified by the period of residence required in the case of the man. Does the noble and learned Lord intend by this Amendment to impose upon them, what I understand they cannot have fulfilled, a condition of continuing to reside to the extent necessary for a man in the University, or does he intend to exempt them from that necessity? I rather understood, in the discussion in Committee, that it was suggested that an Amendment would be proposed by the noble and learned Lord which should have the effect of enabling these women to be qualified if they had resided in accordance with the regulations of their Colleges. As I read this Amendment, that is not the effect of it, because they are apparently to have "kept under the conditions" required of women by the University the period of residence necessary for a man to obtain a degree. If that be the intention of the noble and learned Lord, will it not have the effect of disqualifying practically all the women who have passed these examinations?

LORD SHEFFIELD

In regard to the noble and learned Lord's use of the words "they have kept under the conditions required," my impression is that at Cambridge they do no allow casual outsiders to go in for their Tripos. As to women who have resided at Girton or Newnham, the University has been satisfied with the terms of residence for women which are not exactly the same as those for men. As far as the terms of residence are concerned, I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord has consulted the authorities, and is satisfied that these words would cover residence. The noble and learned Lord has made the other conditions for women more indulgent than those for men, because a man cannot, at a University, take his final degree without going through the previous examinations. In the case of Newnham it has not been the practice to take these previous examinations, but instead something which the University considers as an equivalent to them. The question is not a large one. If the University is willing to take them in, I do not think that we need object, because the former students get in rather more easily than the men. At the same time I wish the noble and learned Lord had been able to tell us whether at Oxford the women who had gone on to pass examinations would have fulfilled the conditions.

LORD PARKER

By leave of the House perhaps I may reply to what has been asked of me. I think that the effect of this Amendment is perfectly clear, at any rate to anybody who knows the conditions at Girton and Newnham. This will enfranchise everybody at Newnham and Girton who has passed the Tripos examinations and has resided at her college for that period of time which would be necessary in the case of a man to obtain a degree. That is the object of it. The reason I put in "under the conditions required of women" is that the residence required for men is residence in one of the real colleges of the University, and not in the colleges of Girton or Newnham; but they will reside in Girton or Newnham, and, as soon as they have resided in those colleges for a period, as in the case of a man, to qualify for a degree and to pass an examination, they will be entitled to vote.

VISCOUNT BRYCE

There is a point I should like to mention in regard to the Amendment, which seems to me otherwise perfectly qualified to meet the difficulty which the House desires to meet. The noble Lord's Amendment seems to assume that a University is in the habit of prescribing the conditions in regard to women for residence. I was not aware that the University does itself prescribe. If my noble friend says it does, my difficulty will be removed.

LORD PARKER

It prescribes in the sense of insisting on residence as necessary for admission to an examination.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I am very glad to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, because obviously in the previous Amendment it was quite ridiculous that, if a University granted the vote to women, those who previously had the vote under the Bill should be disfranchised.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT moved to substitute the age of "twenty-one" for "thirty" in subsection (3) (b). The noble Viscount said: I should like to point out that this Amendment does not affect the Parliamentary vote at all. It applies only to the local government vote, and I hope to induce your Lordships to reduce, for local government purposes only, the voting age of women to twenty-one. It is already, and has been for many years, the qualifying age for a woman who has a qualification of her own for local government purposes. Under the new arrangement by which women are to obtain local government votes through their husbands' qualification under the provisions of the Bill they are to be deprived of the local government vote until they reach the age of 30. Surely it is the married women above all others, the women who are producing and bringing up children, who should be entitled to the local government vote, which concerns so much the health and the welfare of their children. If a single woman at the age of twenty-one acquires a local government qualification—and remember that she can do so by merely taking an unfurnished room as a lodger—she loses it immediately if she marries, say at the age of twenty-two, and for eight years until she reaches the age of thirty, she will have, on her husband's qualification, no power to take an effective part in local government affairs. I have always been in favour of the woman's vote in local government, even in the days when I was against the woman's vote for Parliamentary purposes. We have long thought that single women were fit for the local government vote at the age of twenty-one; I cannot think that we should now decree that the married woman, on her husband's qualification, is unfit for the local government vote until she reaches the age of thirty.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 32, leave out ("thirty") and insert ("twenty-one").—(Viscount Harcourt.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

This point was raised on the Committee stage by Lord Buckmaster, and the House decided, after discussion, not to accept the Amendment. May I point out that no less than 5,000,000 married women over thirty have been added to the local government Register—a far larger number than has ever been added in the case of men. The noble Viscount Lord Harcourt, is still unsatisfied. He wants to extend that arrangement still further, and upset the arrangement arrived at in another place. What is the case as regards married women? The Parliamentary vote was attached to the local government vote, and therefore in the first case these 5,000,000 women received the Parliamentary vote, and the only reason why they were granted the local government vote was that it was pointed out that it seemed to be rather absurd that they should have the larger vote, the Parliamentary vote, and that they should not have the local government vote. That was done and acquiesced in by this House. But that entirely contravened the old rule that a husband and wife were not to be qualified for local government with respect to the same premises, and now the noble Viscount wants to infringe the same principle still further by applying this extension to married women under thirty. Is not the principle sufficiently clear? When these married women get the vote in respect of their husbands they have to wait until they are thirty, but is that so tremendous a hardship? They will have it in their own right then, and if they get the vote through their husbands surely there is no great hardship that they should wait till the age of thirty. There is a clear distinction between the two cases, and I trust that the House will abide by its decision.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 5:

Special provisions for persona serving on war service.

5.—(1) A person to whom this section applies (in this Act referred to as "a naval or military voter") shall be entitled to be registered as a parliamentary elector for any constituency for which he would have had the necessary qualification but for the service which brings him within the provisions of this section.

The right to be registered in pursuance of the foregoing provision shall be in addition to any other right to be registered, but a naval or military voter shall not be entitled to be registered for a constituency in respect of an actual residence qualification in the constituency except on making a claim for the purpose accompanied by a declaration in the prescribed form that he has taken reasonable steps to prevent his being registered under the foregoing provision for any other constituency.

(2) The statement of any person, made in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner, that he would have had the necessary qualification in any constituency but for the service which brings him within the provisions of this section, shall for all purposes of this section be sufficient if there is no evidence to the contrary.

(3) This section applies to any person who is of the age required under this Act in the case of that person and is not subject to any legal incapacity and who—

1. (i) is serving on full pay as a member of any of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown; or
2. (ii) is abroad or afloat in connection with any war in which His Majesty is engaged, and is—
   1. (a) in service of a naval or military character for which payment is made 1201 out of moneys provided by Parliament, or as a merchant seaman, pilot, or fisherman, including the master of a merchant ship or fishing boat and an apprentice on such a ship or boat; or
   2. (b) serving in any work of the British Red Cross Society, or the Order of St. John of Jerusalem in England, or any other body with a similar object; or
   3. (c) in any other work recognised by the Admiralty, Army Council, or Air Council, as work of national importance in connection with the war.

(4) A male naval or military voter who has served or hereafter serves in or in connection with the present war shall notwithstanding anything in this or any other Act, be entitled to be registered as a parliamentary elector if that voter at the commencement of service had attained, or during service attains, the age of nineteen years, and is otherwise qualified.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY had on the Paper an Amendment, at the end of subsection (2), to add the following words: "and the Admiralty, Army Council, and Air Council shall, so far as in their opinion is reasonably practicable and desirable, having regard to the proper conduct of the war, supply each naval or military voter with a copy of the prescribed form of statement which may be sent by such voter by post to the registration officer."

The noble Marquess said: This is one of the Amendments which appear on the Supplementary Paper. Your Lordships are aware that in the case of the naval and military voter, he is qualified for the constituency for which he would have been qualified but for his service, but as that is a very hypothetical and difficult question to answer the Government rely upon the statement of the individual concerned, and they provide that the statement of the individual concerned shall prevail in the absence of other evidence as to what constituency the man would have had a vote for but for his service. Of course, primarily the obligation of finding out who ought to be on the Register or not rests upon the registration officer. But in the case of the naval and military voter the registration officer will be very often placed in a great difficulty, because when he goes his rounds and canvasses he will not really know what naval and military voters used to live in this particular place before the war, and will therefore overlook a very large number of voters and not know even of their existence. Therefore a great deal turns upon this statement of the man himself. If the statement of the man himself could be general it would do away with a good deal of the difficulty, though not altogether.

I have sought, consequently, to provide in this Amendment that every man shall be asked to make the statement, and that the form in which he can make the statement should be furnished to him. That is the simple proposal which I make dressed up in elaborate language. The form can be sent to the man in the shape of a postcard which he has to fill up, and on that he can state clearly (if he will take the trouble to do it) what his name is, what his regiment is, where he claims to vote; and that statement will be one which will come within the meaning of the clause, and be the statement of the person made in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner that he has had the necessary qualification. It seems so simple an Amendment, and designed so clearly for the purpose of facilitating the registration of these naval and military voters, that I hope that the Government will accept it.

It has been pointed out to me that there is a little difficulty with the words "naval or military voter" in lines 4 and 5 of the Amendment; because, under an Amendment which was agreed to in Committee, these naval and military voters include the merchant service. Therefore I propose to move the Amendment with the following words added after the word "voter" in line 5 of my Amendment, "belonging to the Navy, the Army or the Air Force."

Amendment moved— Clause 5, page 4, line 19, after ("contrary") insert ("and the Admiralty, Army Council, and Air Council shall, so far as in their opinion is reasonably practicable, and desirable, having regard to the proper conduct of the war, supply each naval or military voter belonging to the Navy, the Army, or the Air Service, with a copy of the prescribed form of statement which may be sent by such voter by post to the registration officer").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I am sure that the House recognises the anxiety of the noble Marquess to secure that all these military and naval voters will be able to get on the Register, and to vote; but I am not sure that the Amendment of the noble Marquess is really necessary. First of all, it is suggested by Lord Salisbury that the Admiralty, the Army Council, and the Air Council shall supply each naval or military voter with a copy of the prescribed form of statement. Now, he has limited that already by desiring to omit merchant seamen and others; but I do not think that even then it is sufficiently limited, because, after all, the people who require this information are mainly those serving abroad.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Not entirely.

VISCOUNT PEEL

Perhaps not entirely; but, anyhow, the persons serving at home—and there are a large number of naval and military voters serving at home—will be more in the position of persons who will have Readier access to this information than if they were abroad. I think that the noble Marquess has overlooked to some extent the way in which these naval and military voters are to come on the Register. This is a more important point, because I have, already stated that it was the view of the Government that at least seventy to seventy-five per cent. of these voters would be placed on the Register by the registration officers themselves. Therefore it does not seem necessary to lay this duty (especially with the existing shortage of paper) upon the Admiralty and the Army Council of sending to all these naval and military voters these particular forms, when three-fourths of them will not require them at all. Moreover, although these forms will not be necessary in the case of three-fourths of the men, it has, nevertheless, been arranged (and the Army Council has already agreed) that postcards should be sent to all these naval and military voters, largely for the purpose of checking the arrangements that have been made by the registration officers, and to see that they have not omitted to put on any persons in their different districts. In these circumstances I hardly think that the Amendment of the noble Marquess is necessary; because, in effect, what he wants to be done had been done, only in a somewhat more economical fashion; and provision has been made that these men should not escape being put on the Register, and will not be unaware of the right that they have in that connection. Any of these men, of course, who have not been put on the Register, and then want to make their claim, will have to ask their sergeant or their adjutant.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

They never will do it unless it is suggested to them.

VISCOUNT PEEL

It will be suggested to them through the postcard which will tell them what they can do.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Let me ask this question in order to make the matter clear. Does the noble Viscount say that the Government intend to do, even without the Amendment, what I seek to do in my Amendment?

VISCOUNT PEEL

It has been already arranged to be done, although in a slightly different form.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I trust absolutely every word that the noble Viscount says, and if he tells me that the thing is going to be done I do not think it will be worth my while pressing the Amendment. If the noble Viscount gives me a Ministerial engagement to that effect, that will be sufficient for me.

VISCOUNT PEEL

It has been arranged that all these men shall have this postcard informing them what are their rights, and telling them where they can apply. I think that really meets the noble Marquess.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

This conversation is, of course, rather irregular; but the real point is that, if the Government are sending out a postcard, it is equally cheap to send out an efficient postcard—namely, one that has on it the actual method of making the statement. If the Government are going to send a postcard at all let it be an efficient one; and if the noble Viscount says that the Government will do their best to issue an efficient postcard I will not press the matter.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I think I can give an engagement to the noble Marquess that the postcard shall be entirely efficient.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT PEEL moved in paragraph (a) of subsection (3), after "Parliament," to insert "or out of the public funds of any part of His Majesty's Dominions"; and after the first "or" to insert "in service." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is to meet a point which was raised by Lord Burnham—namely, the case of those members of the Dominion Forces who can claim a vote in this country. These words fulfil that obligation.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

Before the Amendment is carried I should like to ask a question. I imagine that a Canadian resident for six months, say, on Salisbury Plain, ran become a voter for that district? I think that these words would apply to a Canadian so qualified the privileges which attach to the naval and military voter—that is, they would make him a voter at nineteen instead of twenty-one; and I think they would enable him to exercise his vote by proxy or by post even after he had left this country for good, if he were serving abroad but with no intention of returning to this country. So long as the war lasted he would be able to exercise a vote although he had left the country for good.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I think the noble Viscount knows that a man can exercise a vote as long as he is on the Register. The question of residence applies only during the six months.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

It gives him special facilities?

VISCOUNT PEEL

Yes. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 29, after ("Parliament") insert ("or out of the public funds of any part of His Majesty's Dominions") and after the first ("or") insert ("in service").—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT PEEL moved, at the beginning of paragraph (c) of subsection (3), to insert "serving." The noble Viscount said: This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 37, at beginning of line insert ("serving").—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7:

Supplemental Provisions as to Residence and Occupation.

7.—(1) Where premises are in the joint occupation of two or more persons, each of the joint occupiers shall, for the purposes of this part of this Act, be treated as occupying the premises subject as follows:—

1. (a) In the case of the occupation of business premises the aggregate yearly value of the premises must for the purpose of the parliamentary franchise be not less than the amount produced by multiplying ten pounds by the number of the joint occupiers; and
1206
2. (b) For the purpose of the parliamentary franchise in a parliamentary county constituency, and for the purposes of the local government franchise, not more than two joint occupiers shall be entitled to be registered in respect of the same land or premises, unless they are bona fide engaged as partners carrying on their profession, trade or business on the land or premises.

(2) Residence in a house or the occupation of a house shall not be deemed to be interrupted for the purposes of this Act by reason only of permission being given by letting or otherwise for the occupation of the house as a furnished house by some other person for part of the qualifying period not exceeding four months in the whole, or by reason only of notice to quit being served and possession being demanded by the landlord of the house.

VISCOUNT PEEL

The first Amendment on Clause 7 is purely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 16, after ("Where") insert ("land or").—(Viscount Peel.)

LORD BURNHAM

Before this Amendment is passed I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fresh anomalies that are being created in regard to the occupation franchise. Of course, it is impossible to make our Election arrangements either logical or reasonable, in respect either of the Parliamentary or the local government franchise. The occupation qualification is being rendered more and more anomalous and even ludicrous for the parliamentary franchise. The number of those who qualify as joint occupiers of any premises or land must be found out by multiplying £10 by that number, and the same thing would apply to the £5 qualification proposed by Lord Harris. But in both cases, if the rateable value is £1 below the stipulated amount not one occupier or joint occupier will be qualified. Therefore, if there are six occupiers claiming qualification as joint tenants or partners, and the rateable value falls short of the necessary £60, not one would be qualified. The same thing applies in the case of the local government qualification just introduced by Lord Harris. I suggest that this cannot be seriously intended, because it is obvious that the number ought to be qualified who would be justified by the rateable value, and it seems a great pity that the words have not been so framed as to have that effect. I can hardly believe that this is a final settlement of the occupation franchise There is no object, in a Bill of this great importance, in creating fresh difficulties which will have to be removed by subsequent legislation.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I hope my noble friend Lord Peel will not think we are unduly inconvenient in pressing him, but here is a very difficult case revealed by my noble friend Lord Burnham. Here we have a difficulty, and I think the Government must meet it. Obviously they do not mean, where there is a rateable value of £55 and six partners, that none of them can have the vote. Yet that is the effect. That cannot be right, and I think the Government must consider the point with a view to meeting it.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I was only waiting, and I am very glad to answer the point that has been raised. I confess that in my unregenerate days the same point occurred to me, but I am told the answer is this, that if you have, say, six joint occupiers and a rateable value of £50, there will then, if you divide six into fifty be obviously only a qualification of £8 odd apiece. The qualification is £10, and obviously you are not going to give a man a vote for less than the proper qualification. I confess it is rather difficult to see how you can avoid the difficulty. If there are six joint occupiers, and the rateable value is only £50, I suppose five must be joint occupiers and thus get out of the difficulty and acquire the vote. I only wish to remind the noble Lord that this has been the law for fifty years. He may find difficulties and anomalies in it, but it has been the law for such a long period, and I understand it is extremely difficult to make any alteration or drafting which will avoid the difficulty.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HARRIS moved, at the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (1), to insert a new paragraph. The noble Lord said: Notwithstanding the ominous warning of my noble friend on the other side, I shall venture to move this Amendment, which is purely consequential on those which I have already moved in an earlier clause.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, line 24, at end insert: (b) In the case of the occupation of land or premises (not being a dwelling-house) the aggregate yearly value thereof must for the purpose of the parliamentary franchise of women be not less than the amount produced by multiplying five pounds by the number of joint occupiers; and."—(Lord Harris)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved to omit from paragraph (b) of subsection (1) all words from the beginning of the paragraph down to the word "not." The noble Lord said: On the last occasion when the Bill was before your Lordships I indicated that I should move an Amendment of this kind, and I rather understood the feeling of the House to be in favour of it. At any rate the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, was good enough to say he would consider it before this stage. I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, has also put down the same Amendment. He is an authority on these matters, and therefore I am led to suppose that my Amendment must be right. The effect of the words as they now stand in the Bill is to make a distinction between town and country for which I cannot imagine there is any reason. The only difficulty which I can imagine is that in the Speaker's Conference it was proposed that the law should be left alone in this case. The law is apparently going to be left alone in the hopeless state just referred to on a previous Amendment, but I nevertheless suggest that here these particular words might very well be left out, in which case the clause would then read— (b) Not more than two joint occupiers shall be entitled to be registered in respect of the same land or premises, unless they are bonâ fide engaged as partners carrying on their profession, trade or business on the land or premises.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 25, leave out from beginning to ("not") in line 27.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

The noble Lord has undoubtedly put his finger on a very curious anomaly—namely, that in parliamentary counties joint occupiers are limited to two, whereas in boroughs there is a limit of six. I understand the noble Lord wishes to assimilate the position in boroughs to that in the counties. That would make the law much more clear and definite, and on the part of the Government I do not wish to offer any objection if the Amendment is pressed.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved, after "premises" where that word first occurs in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), to insert "other than a dwelling-house." The noble Earl said: At the present time a dwelling-house which is worth say £100 a year is occupied by four women. Those women at the present time all have a vote. If the number of persons is limited to two who may be enfranchised, that clearly would disfranchise two of those women. I do not suppose that it is intended to extend this clause to dwelling-houses.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 29, after ("premises") insert ("(other than a dwelling-house)").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I am rather surprised to find an Amendment of this kind moved by my noble friend Lord Camperdown, because his desire is that joint occupiers shall be unlimited in the case of a dwelling-house. I thought we had been dealing lately with Amendments to limit the number of faggot voters that can be created, but if we are going to remove the bar in the case of dwelling-houses there would be no limit to the number. I hope he will not press the Amendment. It would be very unusual to make this great distinction between a dwelling-house and other kinds of joint occupations, and I submit also that it would be rather dangerous.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

I withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved, at the beginning of subsection (2), to insert the words "Without excluding the consideration of any other cases of alleged interruption which may arise." The noble Lord said: This is a point that was mentioned in the House on the last occasion, and I put down these words, which exactly express what my own meaning was on that occasion, as amicus curiœ. I see the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has an Amendment to the same effect later on, and if he prefers his own Amendment to mine, I will withdraw mine.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 32, at beginning insert ("Without excluding the consideration of any other cases of alleged interruption which may arise").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

This is a point which I ventured to raise when your Lordships were in Committee. At that time, this subsection appeared in an earlier clause of the Bill, but the Government were not willing to accept the full view which I then put forward which had reference to the definition of "residence." I have no preference whatever as between the words I am responsible for and the words in the name of the noble and learned Lord. If I could hope that the Government would accept his words or my words, I would desire to fall in entirely with the view of the Government. I must just say, however, that some words of this kind are necessary. If you make an exception and say that one particular breach in residence does not invalidate a residential qualification, then the natural inference is that every other breach in the residential qualification would so so. It is the almost inevitable consequence. Therefore, as there is this exception and the Government do not intend that intervals in residence shall interfere with residence as a qualification, they must have some other words in order to cover the matter. I will not pretend that I am satisfied, any more than Lord Harris is satisfied, with the word "residence" in the Bill. I believe it will lead to any amount of difficulty hereafter. It is, however, impossible upon that point to contend with noble and learned Lords of the great position of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who told us that the matter had been decided by a series of decisions of the Courts and that the difficulty did not exist. I hope he may be right on this occasion as he almost always is on points of law. As a mere layman, one cannot but be astonished that the particular definition of "residence" as it has been shown to me is really likely to lead to no trouble. I am afraid that to the uninstructed layman it seems to be full of future difficulties. That is a matter which I must leave in the hands of the noble and learned Lords in this House, the greatest lawyers in the land; but I hope we may have a concession on this point, which is an admitted difficulty even by them. If you make an exception in a rule that does have the effect of barring all other exceptions unless you put in some other words to prevent that. I leave it to the Government whether they will accept the words of the noble and learned Lord opposite or my words.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This question was raised at an early stage of the proceedings in Committee, and I then expressed the opinion which I held and still hold. I have not the least objection, if the House desires to make assurance doubly sure, to accept a form of words which will clear up all possibility of doubt. Of the two forms suggested, I rather prefer the words standing in the name of the noble Marquess, and if Lord Muir Mackenzie will withdraw his Amendment the House will probably accept the Amendment in the name of Lord Salisbury.

LORD MUIR MACKENZIE

I will withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I move my Amendment as an addition at the end of subsection (2).

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 39, at end insert ("but the express enactment of this provision shall not affect in any way the general principles governing the interpretation of the expression ' residence ' and cognate expressions").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

LORD BUCKMASTER

I have nothing to say against the acceptance of the Amendment, but I should be glad if the noble Marquess would give us some illustration of what he means by "cognate expressions." If no such explanation can be given, I suggest that the words should be left out.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I suppose they mean expressions akin to "residence."

LORD BUCKMASTER

I asked for an illustration.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The words they are supposed to cover are not merely "residence" but "residing" and all the conjugation of the verb "to reside" which appears in different forms in the Bill.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8:

Right of person registered to vole.

8.—(1) Every person registered as a parliamentary elector for any constituency shall, while so registered (and in the case of a woman not-withstanding sex or marriage), be entitled to vote at an election of a member to serve in Parliament for that constituency; but a man shall not vote at a general election for more than one constituency for which he is registered by virtue of a residence qualification or for more than one constituency for which he is registered by virtue of other qualifications of whatever kind, and a woman shall not vote at a general election for more than one constituency for which she is registered by virtue of her own or her husband's local government qualification, or for more than one constituency for which she is registered by virtue of any other qualification.

(2) A person registered as a local government elector for any local government electoral area shall while so registered (and in the case of a woman notwithstanding sex or marriage) be entitled to vote at a local government election for that area, but where, for the purposes of election, any such area is divided into more than one ward or electoral division, by whatever name called, a person shall not be entitled to vote for more than one such ward or electoral division:

Provided that nothing in this provision shall prevent a person voting at an election to fill a casual vacancy except where the casual vacancy is in a borough council, not being a metropolitan borough council.

(3) A naval or military voter who is registered in respect of a qualification which he would have had but for his service shall be deemed for the purpose of this section to be registered by virtue of that qualification.

LORD HARRIS moved, in subsection (2), after the word "one" where it secondly occurs, to insert "qualification in"; and to add, after "such ward or electoral division," the words "but at any ordinary or general local government election for that electoral area a person so registered shall not vote for more than one local government qualification in respect of premises in which he is a resident and for one other local government qualification in another ward or electoral division in the same electoral area." The noble Lord said: This is a very important Amendment, and one which might more properly have been brought froward on the Committee stage, but it was only after that stage had been passed that I was asked to introduce it. The object of it is to assimilate as regards local government franchise the privilege that is already given by the Bill as regards the Parliamentary franchise. Your Lordships will observe that the preceding subsection contains almost precisely the same word that I moved to introduce in subsection (2), and if it was accepted it would give to the local government elector an opportunity of exercising the franchise twice—once as regards his residence and once as regards his place of business. As the greater contains the less, it seems surely proper and consistent that if you have given the man the right to exercise the vote twice on matters with which Parliament deals and which are of far greater importance than those dealt with by local governing bodies, you should give him the same right in connection with local government. Assuming that the Bill, in giving him two votes for a Parliamentary election, says that both as a resident and as a man of business he is a responsible and important person, surely the same thing applies as regards local government matters. By the Speaker's Report it was held out that a new local government franchise was to be substituted for all existing franchises for local government. By subordinate provisions the Bill, as a matter of fact, retains many existing provisions which prevent qualified and responsible electors in certain districts from voting. The object of this Amendment is to remove that restriction, and I am told—naturally my experience there is of no value—that it will simplify registration matters very much indeed. I am told that there is a great deal of "cross starring" (I am informed that this is the right term), particularly in boroughs and municipalities where there are wards cutting up the electoral area, and that there is a great deal of complication as regards a man's right to vote in respect of a place where a man has a place of business or a residence or several places of business. There is much question whether he is to be "starred" as not having the right to vote there. That, to a certain extent, is removed by this Amendment. As the proposal seems to me to be entirely consistent with what has been done as regards the Parliamentary vote and assimilates the two, and as it was held by the Speaker's Conference that there was to be an entirely new local government franchise to be substituted in local government matters, I submit that this is a legitimate proposal, which I hope the Government will accept.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 21, after ("one") insert ("qualification in") and after ("division") insert ("but at any ordinary or general local government election for that electoral area a person so registered shall not vote for more than one local government qualification in respect of premises in which he is a resident and for one other local government qualification in another ward or electoral division in the same electoral area").—(Lord Harris.)

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment. It would enable a man to vote in two wards for local government purposes and would create an enormous number of plural voters at local government elections. In addition it would give votes where none are allowed under the existing law. The noble Lord referred to the difficulties of what he called "cross starring." They really are not difficulties which occur in practice, and every voter has the right of making a selection on which of his qualifications he will vote. If he makes no selection the law is that the revising barriser shall "star" him for his business, and allow him to vote for his residential qualification.

LORD BURNHAM

The noble Viscount who has just sat down is always aroused by the shadow, the very name, of "plural voting," and he seems to forget that a compromise was arrived at in regard to the Parliamentary vote, with the cordial assent of his colleagues at the Speaker's Conference. I am bound to point out in support of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that in the County of London the greatest confusion and difficulty is caused in registration by the fact that where for Parliamentary purposes at the present time a man may vote in more than one separate borough, that is not the case in regard to County Council elections. Now most of that difficulty has been met by the compromise which was arrived at in the Speaker's Conference. Undoubtedly the feeling there was that we must simplify the existing registration as much as possible, thereby saving expense and relieving the candidates of the charge necessary in every fictitious distinction by reason of what the agents have to do and the number of people they have to employ. That being so, and as it is not a matter of great importance from the point of view of numbers, it surely is desirable to make this a consolidating Statute in that respect. I do not believe there is anybody who would raise questions from the Party point of view, and the main thing is to get the local government Register as much as possible identical with the Parliamentary Register. I suggest that my noble friend's Amendment would do that in a way which would be advantageous from every point of view, and, in fact, it really does not admit of any reasonable objection.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I can agree with one proposition of the noble Lord who introduced this Amendment, and that is that the registration officer would see rather less "stars" than he otherwise would, but I am afraid I cannot agree with his other proposition. He told us he wishes to assimilate the position with the Parliamentary position, but I think I ought to point out that it is very different from the Parliamentary position. In Parliamentary elections there was plural voting, as the noble Lord knows very well. As a result or the compromise it was decided that in addition to the residence vote—which was going to be the dominating vote—a man should also have a business vote, for £10 qualification, in another constituency. The proposal to give an additional local government vote does not rest upon any compromise of that kind, nor is there any money qualification at all. Previously the law was that a man could not vote at a local election more than once. Therefore what the noble Lord is doing, and at rather a late stage in the Bill, is to introduce a limited plural vote for local government elections. At the present time the law is that in municipal boroughs a man can only be registered once, and vote once, whereas in other local elections a man can be registered in different electoral divisions and, though he can only vote once at a local general election he can, when a casual vacancy occurs, exercise the other vote. The proposal of the noble Lord is a very far-reaching one indeed, and I do not think it is possible for me, on behalf of the Government, to accept this creation of a limited plural vote for local government purposes at this stage of the Bill. I am afraid if I did so I could not console him with the idea that there would be the least chance of the Amendment being accepted in another place.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT PEEL moved to omit the proviso at the end of subsection (2) and to substitute other words. The noble Viscount said: This is merely a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 6, leave out lines 22 to 25 and insert ("Notwithstanding anything in this provision a person may he registered for more than one such ward or division of a local government electoral area (not being a municipal borough), and may vote in any such ward or division for which he is registered at an election to till a casual vacancy").—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9:

Provision as to disqualifications.

9.—(1) A person shall not be disqualified from being registered or from voting as a parliamentary 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 or 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 no apply to any person who, before the expiration of one year after the termination of the war, proves to the central tribunal, as established for the purpose of the Military Service Act, 1916,—

1. (a) that he has during the continuance of the war taken up and, so far as reasonably practicable, continued either—
   1. (i) service as a member of any of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown on full pay; or
   2. (ii) 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. (iii) service afloat or abroad in connection with the war in any work of the British Bed Cross Society, or the Order of St. John of Jerusalem in England, or any other body with a similar object, or in any work recognised by the Admiralty, Army Council, or Air Council, as work of national importance in connection with the war; or
2. (b) 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; or
3. (c) 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 so doing;

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 employed for payment by or on behalf of a candidate at such election, so long as the employment is legal.

(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.

VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in subsection (1), after "parliamentary," to insert "or local government." The noble Viscount said: I owe your Lordships an explanation of this Amendment. It is put in to meet the difficulty caused by the acceptance of an Amendment which was moved by the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, on the Committee stage. On that occasion he moved to leave out the words "or local government," which meant that the disqualification taken away in a case of the Parliamentary voter was to apply to the local government voter. What I have to point out to the noble Earl is that the position can hardly be left as it is, because it really does not carry out the intention. What does it do? It maintains the qualification for municipal and county electors, which rests upon a statutory basis, but it does not affect the qualification as regards Poor Law guardians. I move to insert these words in order to secure the object which your Lordships had in view—that is to say, that a man should be disqualified from voting for the Poor Law guardians provided he was in receipt of poor law relief. I hope that with this explanation the noble Earl may be satisfied.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 31, after ("parliamentary") insert ("or local government") line 33, at end insert ("Provided that a person shall not be entitled to be registered as a local government elector for the election of a guardian, or of a district councillor who is to act as guardian, if that person has during the qualifying period received poor relief, which would have disqualified that person from being registered as a parliamentary elector if this Act had not passed").—(Viscount Peel.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

We are very much obliged to the noble Viscount, but I think the intention of your Lordships when we struck out the words—it may have been a misdirected effort—was to strike out from the local government Register those who were in receipt of Poor Law relief. That was the object we had in view.

Several NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My noble friend, who is a master of the subject, tells us that we have failed in our object because merely to strike out the words "local government" does not achieve it. What we have done is to strike them out as far as county council elections are concerned and not so far as board of guardians elections are concerned. That is a very good reason, I admit, for modifying the form by which we try to achieve our end, but it does not carry with it the reason for doing what my noble friend proposes—to strike these persons off the Register only for board of guardians purposes and for no other. Our intention was to strike them out for all local government purposes, and for several good reasons. Undoubtedly the strongest case was the case of the guardians. It was generally agreed that to give the pauper a vote for the board of guardians was an absurdity, but my noble friend will find it very inconvenient to have a local government Register in which the elector is entitled to vote for one local government body in his area and not for another—that a man should be on the local government Register which would carry with it a vote for the county council but not for the board of guardians, or for the district council but not for the board of guardians, or for the town council but not for the board of guardians. That would be very inconvenient. It would involve great complication in the Register. But there is more than that. Nothing is more evident, than that the board of guardians as an institution is on its last legs, if I may use such a metaphor, and before very long it will disappear and the Poor Law will be administered by the county councils. It is pretty evident that that is what is going to happen. In those circumstances it will be absurd for the pauper to have a vote for the county council which appoints the committee which is going to give him relief. It is clear that the whole thing should go altogether. I would suggest that instead of moving the long Amendment which stands in his name, the noble Viscount should stop at "local government elector," and go on "if that person has during the qualifying period received poor relief which would have disqualified that person from being registered as a parliamentary elector if this Act had not passed." That is to say, leave out the centre of his Amendment. That would cover what your Lordships intended, and I venture to suggest to the noble Viscount that it would be the best way of dealing with it.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I hope the noble Marquess thinks I was endeavouring to carry out your Lordships' intention, because examining the discussion I find that it turned purely on a question of Poor Law relief. But if the noble Marquess assures me the intention was otherwise, I am bound to carry out what the decision of the House was. In these circumstances will the House allow me to withdraw my Amendment and to substitute "provided that a person shall not be entitled to be registered as a local government elector if that person has during the qualifying period received poor relief which would have disqualified that person from being registered as a parliamentary elector if this Act had not passed."

THE MARQUESS of SALISBURY

That is right. We are much obliged to you.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I beg to move the Amendment in the form which I just now read.

Amendment moved accordingly, and, on Question, agreed to.

VISCOUNT PEEL moved to leave out subsection (2) and to insert a new subsection. The noble Viscount said: This is brought forward in substitution for subsection (2). It is a re-draft, on the lines suggested by your Lordships, of the whole clause with regard to conscientious objectors. It, of course, carries out entirely the sense of the House, and is merely submitted as a clearer way of expressing what was the intention of the House. One of the decisions which your Lordships arrived at was that those conscientious objectors who had been given unconditional exemption and did certain work of national importance should come before a Tribunal and show that they had so done it. That provision is, of course, included in the draft.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, line 34, leave out subsection (2) and insert the following subsection: (2) Any person being a conscientious objector to whom this subsection applies 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 unless before the expiration of one year after the termination of the war he proves to the central tribunal as established for the purposes of the Military Service Act, 1916—

• "(a) That he has during the continuance of the war taken up and, so far as reasonably practicable, continued service which constitutes a person (other than a person serving on full pay as a member of any of the naval, military, or air forces of the Crown) a naval or military voter for the purposes of this Act; or
• "(b) 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; or
• "(c) 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;

and obtains a certificate from the central tribunal to that effect. This subsection shall apply to a conscientious objector who either:

• "(a) has been exempted from all military service (including non-combatant service) on the ground of conscientious objection; or
• "(b) 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 or detention.

The central tribunal established under the Military Service Act, 1916, shall be continued for the purpose of this subsection for a period of a year after the termination of the present war. If a person disqualified under this subsection would have been entitled to be registered as a parliamentary or local government elector but for that disqualification, the disqualification shall not extend so as to affect the right of the wife of that person to be registered or vote as a parliamentary or local government elector as the case may be.—(Viscount Peel).

LORD SHEFFIELD

I do not propose to discuss the whole clause, but I have handed in an Amendment. It is in paragraph (c), after the word "nevertheless," to insert "after the passing of this Act." I asked the noble Viscount in the Committee stage, and he said that it was the intention only to make the obligation begin after the passing of this Act. These words, I think, give effect to the undertaking given in the Committee stage.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes to confine it to work done after the passing of the Act.

LORD SHEFFIELD

If you like "before or after."

VISCOUNT PEEL

That will probably meet the point better.

LORD SHEFFIELD

I quite accept that.

EARL RUSSELL

I do not wish to say a word on the merits of this clause which the House has already discussed, but I desire to point out this to your Lordships. It was suggested in the discussion in Committee by the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill that the Government had very little responsibility for this clause, and had really very little to do with it. I then pointed out to the House that the clause as it came up here had been practically entirely redrafted by the Home Secretary in charge of the Bill in another place. We now see before us a second entire redrafting of this clause by the Government. My own belief is that, within a very few years, this clause will be among all right-thinking people an object of very considerable odium and contempt, and I only wish to point out that His Majesty's Government have made themselves responsible for it by accepting the redrafting of it. They have drafted the clause both as it came here and as it leaves this House, and I only rise for the purpose of pointing out that they cannot escape that responsibility.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I think that the Government must accept responsibility for the drafting. I do not want either to increase or to diminish any responsibility that they have, but they have, I think, followed strictly what they undertook to do—namely, to accept the decisions of another place and of this House and to put them into proper Parliamentary form. That responsibility as regards the proper Parliamentary form they certainly have, and they accept it, but no further responsibility.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

Do I understand that the noble Account is prepared to accept Lord Sheffield's suggested Amendment in paragraph (c)?

VISCOUNT PEEL

Yes, in a slightly different form.

LORD SHEFFIELD

With the addition of the words "before or after the passing of this Act."

VISCOUNT PEEL

Yes.

On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12:

Registration officers and areas.

12.—(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 comity 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.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I beg to move the Amendments which stand in the name of my noble friend Lord Selborne. I am informed that they are consequential.

Amendments moved—

Page 9, lines 1 and 2, leave out ("parliamentary borough and each parliamentary county") and insert ("constituency")

lines 4 and 5, leave out ("parliamentary county and is")

line 7, leave out ("a parliamentary borough and is").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 14:

Appeals.

14. (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, or the placing of or refusal to place any mark against any name on the register, and rules of court shall be made for the purpose of determining the procedure on any such appeals and for applying and adapting thereto any enactments relating to county courts and the procedure therein:

Provided that an appeal shall not lie where a claimant or objector has not availed himself of this 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 decision.

(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 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 us 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 moved in subsection (1), after "by rules of Court," to insert "on any point of law." The noble Lord said: I have put down several Amendments on this clause. The Speaker's Conference recommended that there should be in these registration cases an appeal to the County Court, and in the Amendments that I have put down I am far from trying to go in any way behind that decision. On the contrary, the object of my Amendments is to try to make the scheme work as well as possible, and with the good will of those who have to work the clause. The first Amendment that I have put down is to insert in line 11, after "rules of Court" the words "on any point of law." The effect of that is to limit the appeal to the County Courts from the registration officer, and that there should not be an appeal upon points of fact. There are two main reasons for that. One is the obvious one that it will diminish the burden that is thrown upon the County Courts by the proposal as it stands. There is no doubt, I think, that a very considerable burden will be thrown upon the Courts, and the Bill itself shows that that is anticipated, because there is provision made for assistance to be given to the County Court Judges who find that in consequence of this they have actually too much to do, or that their business is thrown out of gear by the introduction of this new matter. That there should be an appeal on a point of law I quite understand, and I support it as a good thing, but one of the objections which I think is very strongly felt by the Judges themselves is that it introduces a class of cases before them with which not only are they not familiar, but which brings them into the atmosphere of politics in a way that is not desirable. It is, of course, upon questions of fact and not upon law that that aspect would arise. Not only would my proposal relieve them of a considerable burden, but it would also have the effect of relieving them from that particular class of thing which I think it is not desirable should be brought into the Courts.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 11, after ("court") insert ("on any point of law").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

I think that it is of vital importance to the voters that they should retain, as they have at present, the power to make an appeal on points of fact as well as upon points of law. Under the existing registration law there is, on questions of fact, an appeal from the overseer who is the compiler of the Register to the revising barrister, and I am sure that if the noble Lord had ever taken part in registration courts—I do not suppose that he has—he would know that in most cases it is a question of fact which the revising barrister has to decide. Now the compiler of the Register will be the registration officer, and some appeal on fact from his decision seems to be absolutely necessary, because he will only have the same sources of information as the previous compilers, and, as is well known to all of us, many mistakes used to be made on the first lists. The County Court is very competent to deal with facts. Nearly all the judgments of the provincial County Courts are now based upon finding of fact, and I think that it would be a great hardship on the future electors if they were to be deprived by this Amendment of an appeal on fact as well as on law.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

Do I understand that the revising barristers are to continue?

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

No.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

Otherwise I most heartily support the present Amendment because the County Court Judges have a great deal to do as it is, and, with the new Schedules, I do not think that for the next year the County Courts will be able to discharge their own proper functions. It is most unreasonable that you should give an appeal on questions of fact. It will probably shut out the persons who are most entitled to consideration—namely, the poor—because you abolish the revising barrister and you are to give an appeal on fact. I have known an appeal on the question whether a door was an inner or outer door to last twelve hours. If that sort of appeal is to be admitted to the County Court you might as well suspend the proper functions of the County Court for a year or two.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This question has been considered. In the first instance I believe the Bill was introduced into the Commons proposing an appeal on questions of law, but there was a very strong feeling there that the appeal should be extended to questions of fact, and to my mind there are very good reasons for it. You very often have questions of law and questions of fact very much mixed up together. In the old days where you had the revising barristers, trained lawyers familiar with this sort of point, dealing with the cases, the appeal from the revising barrister was only to the Court on questions of law. That is perfectly right, because you had the matters dealt with satisfactorily and the issues of fact separated from the issues of law. But here you will have the whole matters dealt with by the registration officer, and I cannot help thinking that it would be very unfortunate if there were no means of getting a miscarriage set right because it turned out to be rather a question of fact than of law. I am sure that my noble and learned friend who has just spoken will recognise that it is extraordinarily difficult in a great many cases to draw the line between questions of fact and questions of law. One has illustrations of it every day in cases which even come as far as your Lordships' House. I have given some thought to this matter, and upon the whole I have come to the conclusion that the alteration made in the Commons in the Bill as originally introduced was right, and that the appeal should not be confined purely to questions of law. You might have a great many discussions, and very subtle discussions, as to whether it was a question of law or a question of fact, and it would save time in the end and prevent injustice if the appeal were left in the form which it assumed in the Commons. I am, of course, keenly sensible of what my noble and learned friend has said as to taking up the time of the County Court. But provision has been made in the Bill to meet that point, because there is power given for the appointment by the Lord Chancellor of additional Judges to help the County Court in dealing with its own work, plus the work that will be put upon it by this Bill. And I hope this will enable the County Courts to get through the ordinary litigation that falls to their share without in any way interfering with the discharge of the additional duties which this Bill proposes to throw upon them. For these reasons, although the matter is one which admits of discussion, I have arrived at the conclusion that the decision taken to alter the Bill was right.

LORD BURNHAM

When the noble Lord replies, I should like to put a question to him as to the scale of payment under this clause. My concern is not so much for the legal profession as for the public purse, and when the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack tells you that it is within his power to appoint barrisers of not less than seven years standing to take the place of County Court Judges where these functionaries are unable to discharge these new duties satisfactorily, in addition to the many other legal matters that they have to deal with, I fancy a good many will be appointed. In fact, I doubt whether there will be very much change from the system of revising barrisers as it now prevails. I imagine that the revising barrister will have a new birth for this purpose in the County Court. I should like to know on what scale remuneration is paid. It says in subsection (6) that he is to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament on a scale settled by the Treasury. Will that scale be submitted to Parliament or has it already been drawn up?

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

Is not the question that we are on Lord Muir Mackenzie's Amendment

VISCOUNT PEEL

I think it is; and I am afraid I cannot give any definite answer to the noble Lord, except this, that I understand that the scale of charges will be laid before Parliament. The noble Lord knows that it is a common practice in the case of a great many of these Bills that the scale of charges is settled by the Treasury in the usual way.

LORD BUCKMASTER

I admit I have felt very uneasy indeed about the question raised by this Amendment. County Courts may be very heavily overladen with work, and they may be called upon to decide questions of fact second-hand after the registration officer has already heard and determined them himself. I cannot quite accept the view of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that questions of fact are so incapable of being distinguished from questions of law that confusion may arise if you confine the appeal under Clause 14 to a question of law, since, as I understand him to suggest, you will have the appeals brought anyhow, and the argument made that they are questions of law when, in reality, they are questions of fact. But, as the appeal from the County Court Judge himself is simply on a question of law, it is plain that the distinction between the question of fact and the question of law has to be determined at some stage of the procedure, and I do not see why it should be more difficult to determine it at the initial stage than at the later one. The thing that concerns me most is this. Are these appeals that are brought from the registration officer to the County Court appeals that are brought at the risk of the appellant as to his costs? If there is a long hearing and the appeal fails, can he be ordered to pay the costs of the registration officer? Because, if there be that protection, then it seems to me that trivial and unreal questions will not be raised. But unless that protection is there I should certainly feel inclined to support the Amendment of the noble Lord to limit these appeals to questions of law.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I understand that, by the ordinary Rules of Court, he would have to pay the costs in the ordinary way if the litigant failed.

LORD BUCKMASTER

If that is so, it is all right.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT moved the addition of words in subsection (1) immediately before the proviso. The noble Viscount said: I am sure we should feel that it would be intolerable for any voter to be debarred, on the ground of expense, from establishing his claim to the franchise. Under the existing law he can appear, without costs, before the revising barrister, a man who has had seven years at the Bar, and, perhaps, has had many more years in trying knotty registration points of this sort every year. Surely this advantage is not to be taken away now. It ought to be as easy in the future as it is now for a man to have his case decided by a competent lawyer; and with reference to what my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster said just now, at the end of my Amendment appear the words, "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."

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 17, 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").—(Viscount Harcourt.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

This Amendment is precisely similar to the one raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, in the Committee stage; and I am afraid that I am unable to give the noble Viscount any other answer than the one which I gave to the noble Lord. With regard to the fees, the matter was moved in the other House, but resisted there by the Government on the ground that the fees were very small, and that there must be some sort of limitation to the number of cases brought before the Court. As regards the question of costs, I fear that if I accepted the Amendment it would go exactly contrary to what I have just said to Lord Buckmaster; because I told the noble and learned Lord that the costs would follow the event. If the Amendment were accepted, anybody who was a successful plaintiff (or whatever he might be called) though he might win he would not get his costs under the ordinary Rules of the Court. In these circumstances I cannot accept the Amendment. I am also advised that the question of deciding whether a case is frivolous and vexatious is a very difficult one, and it would not be easy for Judges to apply a Rule of that kind.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD MUIR MACKENZIE had the following Amendment upon the Paper: Page 10, line 19, after ("opportunity") insert ("as provided in the Schedule hereto"). The noble Lord said: In my view this is only a drafting Amendment, but I do not know whether the noble Viscount looks upon it as such.

VISCOUNT PEEL

The noble Lord has left the question of the Schedule rather vague.

LORD MUIR MACKENZIE

It is the First Schedule.

VISCOUNT PEEL

If the noble Lord inserts the word "First," I have no objection to the Amendment.

LORD MUIR MACKENZIE

I will move it in that form.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 19, after ("opportunity") insert ("as provided in the First Schedule hereto").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT PEEL

The next Amendment standing in my name is merely consequential upon an Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, which I accepted at an earlier stage; but I prefer to move it in a different form from that on the Paper.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 20, at the end insert ("or as to the placing or refusing to place any such mark as aforesaid").—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved to omit from subsection (2) all words after "Supreme Court to," and to insert "the High Court, whose decision shall be final." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is that the appeal from the County Court, instead of going, as provided in the Bill, direct to the Court of Appeal, shall go to the High Court, which would mean to a Divisional Court of the King's Bench Division. The reasons for my suggesting that are these. In the first place, the King's Bench Division is the Court to which appeals both in election cases and in registration cases already go, and have gone for a great many years. It appears to me that it is the obvious Court to which they ought to go. Further, it is the Court to which all appeals from County Courts (with the exception of those under the Workmen's Compensation Act) already go; and unless there is some very strong reason for making them go direct to the Court of Appeal I do not see why it has been so provided. I think, however, there might be this reason—namely, that it might be thought more proper to have one appeal only, in the Court of Appeal, than to put an end to the appeals in the King's Bench Division. But I do not think there is really anything in that. The King's Bench Division are competent to do the work. There is the very strong additional reason that the King's Bench Division is at present more than up to its work; the lists which were published the other day show that they have comparatively little business to do now, and at the very time when you want to get this work carried through rapidly. On the other hand, the Court of Appeal is more than full up with work and could not possibly set aside days to take up these things. I therefore move my Amendment, the effect of which is to give the appeal to the High Court instead of to the Court of Appeal.

Amendment moved— Page 10, leave out lines 24 and 25, and insert ("the High Court, whose decision shall be final").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I hope that my noble friend will in the end agree with me that it is better for the clause to stand as it now is in the Bill. My reasons for saying that are several. In the first place, the taking of an appeal straight from the County Court to the Court of Appeal follows the precedent of the Workmen's Compensation Act, an Act with which my noble friend is very familiar. I think such a course tends to give a unity of decision which cannot be attained if appeals were made to any other Court. The County Court Judges, I am informed, are strongly opposed to the Amendment which my noble and learned friend has brought forward, and those who have experience of the working of the Court of Appeal are definitely against the proposal to substitute the Divisional Court. There are one or two considerations which I should like to bring to your Lordships' notice. The constitution of the Divisional Court necessarily fluctuates very much from week to week and sometimes from day to day. You have not the same Judges sitting continuously, as you used to have in the old days of the Courts in banc, to which some of us are able to look back. There is considerable disadvantage in having Courts which fluctuate in their composition from time to time to deal with questions of this nature which are of considerable public importance. Decisions may be given affecting the enfranchisement or disfranchisement of considerable numbers of people, and it is surely desirable that in such circumstances the Court should be one which commands public confidence, when the decision is to be final. No one would like to have the decision of the Divisional Court subject to an appeal to the Court of Appeal. It would double the expense, and on the whole I put it to your Lordships that although this Amendment has been brought forward by my noble and learned friend, it is desirable that the appeal should follow the precedent of the Workmen's Compensation Act and go straight to the Court of Appeal, which sits with a more or less uniform composition and does not fluctuate in com position so much as the Divisional Court. Therefore I hope the Amendment will not be accepted.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved an Amendment in subsection (6). The noble Lord said: The remainder of the Amendments to this clause which stand in my name deal with one subject, the general purport of which is that the County Court Judge shall in these cases, as in others, appoint his own deputy, and that the work under this Act shall be done by the deputy or assistant Judge, leaving the Judge to do his own work—that the Judge should not leave his own work to be done by what I may call the journeyman, but that he should appoint as his deputy for the purpose of this Act a man who, although he may not be familiar with the ordinary County Court work, is likely to do well the particular work which arises under this Act. I think it would be particularly annoying that a dispossessed revising barrister should be appointed to do the registration work, and that then the County Court Judge should do that work with which he is unfamiliar, leaving the assistant Judge to do the ordinary County Court work with which the assistant Judge is not familiar. I therefore move the first of these Amendments, and whether I shall proceed to move the remainder depends upon your Lordships' decision.

Amendment moved— Page 11, lines 2 and 3, leave out ("owing to the necessity of dealing") and insert ("both to deal").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I would ask your Lordships to leave the Bill as it now stands upon this point. The object of this series of Amendments is to define the work which is to be done by the County Court Judge and by the assistant Judge. I submit to your Lordships that we had much better leave that to be settled by the County Court Judge, with the advice of the assistant Judges. Of course, in some cases it may be much better that the registration work should be dealt with, in the first instance at all events, by the County Court Judge, while in other cases he may consider that he can better devote himself to the proper work of his Court, leaving the assistant Judge, who may have special experience in registration matters, to deal with those cases. That I think may be left to be settled by the Judges, and on the whole I should deprecate making the changes which this series of Amendments proposes.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD MUIR MACKENZIE

I shall not move the other Amendments which stand in my name.

Clause 16:

Special provisions with respect to urban districts and London.

16.—(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, of the general district rate for the borough fund or borough rate, and of the chairman of the council for the mayor.

(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.

LORD PARMOOR, on behalf of the EARL of SELBORNE, moved, at the beginning of the clause, to leave out "which is a Parliamentary borough." The noble Lord said: This is a consequential Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 30, leave out ("which is a Parliamentary borough").—(Lord Parmoor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BURNHAM moved, after Clause 16 the insertion of a new clause "Special provisions as to registration of freemen, etc." The noble Lord said: In the Committee stage the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill was good enough to say that he would accept an Amendment in this sense. The words have been carefully drafted and I think they have high authority, and I do not think it is necessary to re-state the case.

Amendment moved— Insert as a new clause:

"Special provision as to registration of freeman, &c.

"A freeman of the City of London being a liveryman of one of the several companies who is entitled to be registered as a parliamentary elector in respect of a business premises qualification within the City, shall be entitled if he thinks fit, to be entered in a separate list of liverymen in the register of parliamentary electors and to record his vote for Parliament as a liveryman.

"(2) The foregoing provision shall apply to the freeman of any borough if the council of the borough so resolve, and the expression" freemen "shall include any persons by whatever name called enjoying in that borough rights similar to those enjoyed by freemen of the city of London in that city."—(Lord Burnham.)

THE EARL OF JERSEY

I have been asked to support the Amendment which has just been moved, and more especially the second subsection, on behalf of the freemen of the City of Oxford. I have no doubt that the freemen of other cities would welcome such an Amendment, if your Lordships accept it, but personally I am only concerned to try and establish a case for those who have asked me to represent their interest. I do not propose to ask your Lordships to listen to a review of the history of Oxford for the last thousand years, though I believe that any one who could lay claim to an accurate and detailed knowledge of the history of Oxford would have a more than superficial knowledge of the history of England. I will content myself with reminding your Lordships that many Parliaments have met in that historic city, and that among others in the year 1258 the Provisions of Oxford were there enacted, which historians tell us are the basis of our present system of representation. Incidentally, I have often wondered why, having told us that, they usually add that that Parliament is known as the Mad Parliament; but I do not propose to trace that particular analogy this evening. I do, however, suggest that special consideration should be given to a city where these Provisions were enacted, at a time when the representation of the people is under review. In one particular respect the claim of the freemen of the City of Oxford is based on a very sure foundation, because they have a very definite legal right to be included in any concession which is made to the liverymen of the City of London. The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, said— I believe there are many other ancient and honourable corporations which, if the case of the City of London be conceded, have a case which appears to be almost unanswerable. May I read a brief extract from the Charter of Henry II, which is the Charter on which the freemen of the city of Oxford really base their claims— Know that I have granted and confirmed to my citizens in Oxenford all liberties and customs and laws and quittances which they had in the time of King Henry my grandfather, and they are to have all other customs and liberties and laws of their own which they have in common with my citizens of London. And that they serve wine at my feasts with those of my Butlery, and do their traffic with them, within London and without and everywhere. And if they doubt or dispute about any legal judgment, let them send their messengers to London on the point, and hold to the decision of the Londoners…for they and the Citizens of London have one and the same custom and law and liberty. Well, my Lords, in view of that Charter I think it will hardly be denied that the freemen of the city of Oxford are entitled to be treated in the same way as the liverymen of the city of London. I would have your lordships observe that they do not claim any extension of the franchise, but merely the retention of privileges which they have valued and cherished for several hundred years, and which (I would also ask you to observe) have been reserved to them in every Reform Act hitherto. The noble Lord, Lord Burnham told us, when he spoke on the subject on a previous occasion, that this Amendment was really brought forward from a sentimental point of view, and I am sure your Lordships will agree that it would be a sorry thing if sentiment were altogether eliminated from our daily life. If sentiment is to be preserved anywhere I would suggest that it should be maintained in Oxford of all places where every building and every stone is redolent of ancient traditions. I am sure I shall not appeal in vain for the sympathy of the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill. I see here many other noble Lords who by their associations with Oxford have added lustre to the record of that University. If they suggest that their associations were academic rather than civic may I remind them that the ancient feud between Town and Gown has long become a thing of the past, and that that hereditary feud has accompanied other hereditary traditions and institutions which have been swept away, by what is called progress, if not into the realms of oblivion, at any rate into the annals of the past; and it would be a very fitting thing if they were to show their appreciation of the hospitality which they received from the city of Oxford in bygone days by allowing the freemen of that City to retain those privileges which are so dear to them. I certainly do not wish to introduce anything of a controversial nature into the Bill but I would remind your Lordships that these privileges in no way affect the principle of the Bill. This concession would mean nothing to anyone except to those whose cause I plead. It means the retention of rights which have been handed down to them through successive generations and which they have jealously guarded. I would submit that it is on traditions of this sort that the very best features of our national life are founded, and, therefore, I would ask your Lordships to accept the Amendment.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

When I opposed the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, in the Committee stage, I did so because it created an additional franchise. I understand that the wording of this Clause as it is now drawn, adds no franchise whatever.

LORD BURNHAM

Hear, hear.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

And no freeman or liveryman will be able to vote without a business qualification.

LORD BURNHAM

That is so.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

And that same limitation applies to any other cities. In these circumstances I make no objection, and I am very glad that those who wish to retain historic rights can do so under a separate heading or category in the Register.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I am very glad to accept Lord Burnham's portion of the clause, and to say, as Lord Crawford said, that we will not only accept it but do our best to persuade the authorities elsewhere to accept it also. I do not make the same promise about the subsidiary part of the Amendment extending it to Oxford and other towns, but my noble friend also, I think, pointed out that it would be difficult to restrict it to London, and that there was no reason why if we accepted it for London it should not be accepted for other places. I do not wish to oppose the extension of it, because I do not think it is possible to draw any distinction between the two causes.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19:

Modification of method of voting in certain constituencies.

19.—(1) In a constituency returning not less than three nor more than five members of Parliament any contested election of the full number of members shall be according to the principle of proportional representation, each elector having one transferable vote as defined by this Act.

(2) At a contested election for a university constituency, where there are three or more members to be elected, any election of the full number of members shall be according to the principle of proportional representation, each elector having one transferable vote as defined by this Act.

(3) His Majesty may by Order in Council frame regulations prescribing the method of voting and transferring and counting votes, at any election, according to the principle of the transferable vote and for adapting the provisions of the Ballot Act, 1872, and any other Act relating to parliamentary elections thereto, and with respect to the duties of returning officers in connection therewith, and any such regulations shall have effect as if they were enacted in this Act.

(4) Nothing contained in this Act shall, except as expressly provided therein, affect the method of conducting parliamentary elections in force at the time of the passing of this Act.

LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH moved, in subsection 2, to substitute "two or more members" for "three or more members." The noble Lord said: The subject to which I wish to call your Lordships' attention is a very small one. At the same time it is one of some importance. At a late hour last Tuesday your Lordships agreed, by a vote of a very narrow character—31 to 30—and with some hesitation expressed on the part of certain members of the majority, to alter the Bill as it then stood before you in this respect. The Bill proposed that the principle of proportional representation should be applied to two-Member Universities. That is to say to Oxford, Cambridge, and I believe in circumstances that will be before us but are not now immediately before us, to Dublin also. It was proposed by the Earl of Plymouth that that application of proportional representation should be withdrawn from the two ancient Universities, which should vote in the future as they have in the past, giving them two Members supported by the majority of the burgesses of the University. It is a very small matter indeed, and I venture to submit reasons for thinking that in practice it will be found that under one or other system much the same result will prevail. But I think it is extremely desirable that you should not in any way prejudice the application of proportional representation generally by giving an opportunity to people to say "You withdraw it whenever you see it will operate against Liberal interests or Liberal principles or the representation of Liberalism." It is most undesirable that occasion should be given to any person to bring this allegation, especially when there is no substance whatever in it. No doubt it is an anomaly that proportional representation should be applied to two-Member Universities while it is not proposed to apply it to other two-Member constituencies, if they ultimately remain in our system of Parliamentary election. The aim of many of us is to limit the number of two-Member constituencies, but it is not proposed to alter the two-Member Universities. I submit to your Lordships that it is not desirable that the accusation of an anomaly should be sufficient to induce you to remove what has been adopted and supported—namely, the application of the principle of proportional representation to the Universities, which was part and parcel of the Speaker's Conference unanimously agreed upon. No doubt; it was proposed there in a little different shape. What was suggested at the Speaker's Conference was that University electors should be confined in those cases to "one man one vote." There was no right given to spread over the power of the Party so as to bring in as many candidates as it could secure the election of. Supposing you had 20,000 electors, as might be the case in a University and you are confined to one man one vote the first man might get 15,000 votes and the next man come down to a very small number, while the other men who come below cumulatively might bring victory to a different candidate. The application of proportional representation to such a case simply provides for an equal distribution of the votes at the disposal of any particular party in the representation of the community. Therefore the original proposal of the Speaker's Conference, that each elector should have only one vote and give it to one person, was qualified by the addition that it should be a single transferable vote, thus securing the application of proportional representation. It is said that is very anomalous; why in Universities alone where there are two Members, should you secure that there will be representatives of the bigger and smaller parties? The reason is that this was approved by the Speaker's Conference, and supported by the House of Commons, and it conies up to your Lordships' House in that form.

If you make the alteration, and send it back to the House of Commons with the support that was accorded to the change you will, I am afraid, be open to the ill-fortune of finding your alteration rejected in another place, and then consenting to the rejection. And the adoption of the rejection of the proposal will be accompanied by expressions which I, for my part, should strongly deprecate in relation to the action of your Lordships' House. I would save your Lordships' House from any risk of having to abandon your position in the end, and I would save your Lordships' House from insinuations that you have been acted upon by Party feeling in the adoption of the change you sanctioned in Committee stage. I do not think it will lead to any result. Nobody can say what will be the exact composition of the electorate of Universities in the future. It is supposed that the number of voters will be nearly double and that where you have 10,000 now, you will get 20,000. They will be Bachelors of Arts and those who have not proceeded to the higher degrees, and also women voters. I confess to the opinion that you will find, as you have found in University elections, a strongly predominant Conservative opinion. I find no fault with that. I recognise that it is quite proper and just that persons should hold any opinion they choose, and get their representatives accordingly. But there is a strong predominance of Conservative opinion in Universities and, in my own judgment, I believe after a short time, if not immediately, that the two members for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge would continue to be Conservative, as they have been in the past, and that the application of proportional representation, or not, would produce no change in the character of the representation.

I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if for one moment I address you with one or two considerations of arithmetic. If the Conservative power in Universities is two-thirds of the number of the persons brought to the electorate, or in any way exceeds two-thirds, then Conservative power will be able to secure both seats, whether you have proportional representation or not. Therefore, I believe my Lords, if you went to the University of Cambridge—with which I am better acquainted than I am with Oxford—under the new system, with proportional representation, the effect would be that the two sitting Members would offer themselves for re-election, they would act together in addressing their electors, and say, "vote for one of us first, but, whatever you do vote, for the other one second. Place either of us you like first, but do put the other second," and, in that way they could bring all their powers to bear on the election, and if they secured two-thirds of the electorate the two existing Members, if they stood, would be again re-elected. Probably the same thing is true of Oxford University. There is no doubt that under the stimulus of an added electorate, there would be some other competitors offering themselves for election, but against the strong opposition of the sitting Member, supported by the machinery I have described, I believe the result would be very much the same. So far as Party interests are concerned, I am fighting for nothing, one way or the other. But I feel it is unwise to pass, by a small vote of 31 to 30, and send down to the House of Commons the rejection of a clause which originated in the Speakers Conference as part of their unanimous recommendations, supported after discussion in the House of Commons, and which came up to your Lordships' House in the shape which I venture to hope, you will return unaltered.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 29, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

There was a very full discussion on this point when the House was in Committee stage, and the noble Lord, I understand, wishes to reverse the decision which was then arrived at. It was perfectly true that, as the Bill came up, it applied the single transferable vote to the double-Member Universities, and the House decided it should not be applied to the two-Member Universities but only to the three-Member Universities. On behalf of the Government I put the matter as best I could, somewhat on the lines which the noble Lord has stated now, but the House was against me and, I would suggest—

LORD COURTNEY

Only by a small majority.

VISCOUNT PEEL

It was a small majority, but the question was thoroughly discussed, and, as it is rather a thin House at the present moment, I think it might be wise to let another place decide the matter. As regards what the noble Lord said, that there was any suggestion of Party bias, I think it is only fair to say, having examined the Division List on that occasion, that there is no basis for the allegation at all. In fact, there was a great deal of cross voting. I hope the House will reject the Amendment and let it be decided elsewhere.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I quite agree with the attitude taken up by the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill. I venture to think, after some experience in your Lordships' House, that it is always a mistake to reverse, on Report, what it has done in Committee unless there is some very good reason alleged. I do not pretend to be strongly in favour of what was done in Committee, but I was in favour of it on the arguments put before us, and to reverse on Report what was done in Committee is, prima facie, a mistake. On the bare argument there is no reason why you should apply proportional representation to two-Member Universities any more than to any other two-Member constituency. They ought apparently to stand on the same footing. I think the noble Viscount is well advised in the course he has taken, and that it is better not to alter what has been done in Committee.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Polls to be held on one day at a general election.

20.—(1) At a general election all polls shall be held on one day, and the day fixed for receiving nominations shall be the same in all constituencies, and accordingly the First Schedule to the Ballot Act, 1872, shall be modified as shown in Part I of the Second Schedule to this Act.

In the case of a by-election, the poll shall take place on such day as the returning officer may appoint, not being less than four or more than eight clear days after the day fixed for nomination, and the First Schedule to the Ballot Act, 1872, shall be modified accordingly.

(2) Official telegraphic information of the writ having been issued for a parliamentary election may be given in such cases and by such persons as may be directed by His Majesty in Council, and any steps for holding an election which may be taken on or after the receipt of the writ may be taken on or after the receipt of an official telegraphic intimation of the writ having been issued.

(3) The time appointed for the meeting of the Parliament may be any time not less than twenty clear days after the proclamation summoning the Parliment; and the Meeting of Parliament Act, 1852, is hereby repealed.

(4) Nothing in this section shall—

1. (a) affect the provisions of section one of the Ballot Act, 1872, relating to the commencement afresh of the proceedings with relation to the election on the death of a candidate or apply to proceedings so commenced afresh; or
2. (b) apply to a university election.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The second paragraph of subsection (1) of Clause 20 deals with the interval between the nomination and the poll in the case of by-elections. If your Lordships will look at the Schedule you will find that in the case of a General Election the interval is nine days. The Bill is so drafted that the General Election case is dealt with in the Schedule, and the by-election case is dealt with in the clause; and in the clause, instead of being nine days, it is only four days. The lower limit is only four days and the higher limit eight days. It appears to me desirable, if your Lordships agree, that we should as far as possible assimilate the two, and make the interval of the by-election the same as the General Election. I need not tell your Lordships that this is of special importance in the particular circumstances in which the country is placed, because of the votes of the absent naval and military voters. If a by-election takes place, I am quite certain that, as the Bill is drawn, there would be no means of getting the votes of the absent voters in time. Therefore, it appears to be desirable to make a change. I suppose the noble Viscount might say it would always be possible for those who have to fix the poll to take the superior limit. That is true, but I think Parliament ought not to leave that to the opinion of the particular locality. I do not say the particular locality would be likely to use its power in a sinister way, but such things have been known as that the day of the poll has been fixed with a view to giving a Party advantage to one side rather than the other. Though I would rather not suggest that, yet I do think it is the duty of Parliament to take precautions lest, in a misguided moment, some authority should avail themselves of this power in order to exclude soldiers and sailors from giving their votes. Therefore, although this deals with only a small part of the subject, by-elections, and I shall have something to say later on with regard to General Elections, I hope this Amendment will be accepted. I think in the course of our long proceedings in Committee the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill was advised rather to encourage some modification of this clause upon the present stage.

Amendment moved— Clause 20, page 15, line 11, leave out ("four") and insert ("eight") and leave out ("eight") and insert ("twelve").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

I hope the noble Marquess will not press his Amendment. He has, no doubt, taken part in some by-elections. I have taken part in a good many, and I am sure it is to the advantage of the constituencies, the voters, the candidates, and the public generally that the time occupied by the by-election should be as short as possible. In the provision for General Elections, in order that all polls should be taken on the same day, it was necessary to take the longest amount of time considered desirable for a big county division or a distant place, but here it would be extremely hard to impose on a borough the necessity of having ten days between the issue of the writ and the poll, whereas at the present time six days is the minimum and is amply sufficient. I myself took part in a by-election some years ago at Southampton, a two-Member constituency, and the poll took place six days from the issue of the writ. They were able to carry the election through with perfect success and with much less inconvenience to the trades people.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Constituencies are going to be rather larger.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

Under what I regard as unfortunate conditions temporarily introduced into this Bill, there will be some constituencies rather larger, but I assume the noble Marquess does not intend to penalise those happy constituencies left as single or two-member constituencies merely because he has seen fit to introduce constituencies of an unwieldy size into the Bill.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I think the Amendment goes a little beyond, may I say, what the noble Marquess intended, because I think he said he wished to assimilate by-elections to General Elections. He wishes to provide a period of not more than twelve days. There may be twelve days, therefore, between the nomination and the polling. If he will look at the Schedule he will see that in General Elections there is to be a period of nine days as the longest limit. Therefore he wishes by-elections to have three more days than in the case of General Elections.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I understand there must be a little margin in a by-election. You cannot tie it to a particular day. But the great thing is to fix a minimum so as not to deprive soldiers and sailors of the vote.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I agree that you must have a certain amount of elasticity in by-elections. In the case of General Elections you cannot, because of the rule that all the elections must take place on the same day. What I am dealing with is not so much the elasticity point as that the longest period you allow in a by-election is, according to the noble Marquess, three days more than for a General Election. That does seem to me rather an unreasonable suggestion to make, that the by-election should have twelve days and the General Election nine days. I think it would be a pity to lengthen by-elections to such an extent as that. As regards the lower limit, the noble Marquess wishes to put eight days, I think, instead of four. Of course, the noble Marquess thoroughly realises that you must have a lower limit as well as an upper limit to have elasticity in the case of by-elections. If the noble Marquess wished to lengthen the period from eight to nine days and bring it up to the same period as the upper limit in the case of General Elections, I do not know that I should be disposed to oppose it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not know whether the noble Viscount will take six and ten.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I cannot extend the period of General Elections, but the Government might be disposed not to oppose the noble Marquess if he wished to assimilate the longer period and make it nine days in each case.

LORD BURNHAM

I hope the noble Marquess will not press this point, because I feel very much that to increase the period, as it inevitably would, in these big constituencies is a very serious thing. We do not all take the view of the noble Viscount that only a temporary change has been made in the Bill. I am bound to say that the by-election is a point that deserves consideration in a big scheme of proportional representation. Nothing could be worse than to lengthen the period. There is the greatest difference between constituencies, and therefore it would be a mistake to raise the lower limit. In London constituencies it could be perfectly well done under any scheme adopted by this House as to redistribution. I hope the present figures will be allowed to remain.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22:

(3) During the continuance of the present war and a period of twelve months thereafter, for the purpose of allowing more time for the receipt of ballot papers from persons whose names are entered on the absent voters list, His Majesty may by Order in Council direct that the counting of votes at any elections to which the Order applies shall, instead of taking place as soon as practicable after the close of the poll, take place at such time (not exceeding eight days after the close of the poll) as may be fixed by the Order, and returning officers shall comply with any such direction.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I want, if I can, upon my next Amendment, to persuade your Lordships to extend in subsection (3) the eight days which are specially allowed to meet the exigencies of the present war to fourteen days during which the votes of the military and naval voters can be received. The reason that this is necessary is this. The time allowed is too short, and I think that if the Government will reflect upon it they will be inclined to agree with me upon that. Nothing can be done until after the nomination, because until then the authorities will not know who the candidates are. Therefore the ballot papers cannot be printed and nothing can be done until after the nomination. It will take perhaps two or three days to do the printing. Then the ballot papers have to be sent to the absent voters. I believe that it is a fact that in order to get a letter sent and returned to the most extreme part of the Line in France as much as fourteen days have been found to be required. With the time occupied in printing, that will take up a considerable period. The Government allow nine days between the nomination and the poll, and they have the eight days which the clause under discussion provides, or seventeen days in all. They will see how very fine they are running it. They have to get the printing done, and to get the letter sent and returned, and to do that within the period named is, I believe, practically impossible. I would remind your Lordships that this is only for the emergency of the war, and is not a general provision to affect the law under all circumstances. It would be a thousand pities to spoil the ship for a pennyworth of tar as it were, and for lack of a few more days to disfranchise a large number of these military and naval voters. To avoid that some prolongation of the time is necessary. I think that an apology is due to your Lordships that this was not moved in Committee. The truth is that we had so much to do in Committee that it was almost impossible to cover the whole of the ground. That is my only excuse for not having brought forward the matter in Committee. This is not a point which is created out of my own intelligence, but it has been submitted to me as essential by a very expert adviser in matters of electioneering who assures me that the time allowed for the purpose is insufficient.

Amendment moved— Clause 22, page 17, line 4, leave out ("eight") and insert ("fourteen").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I think that the noble Marquess will admit that I showed a certain pliancy towards him on the last Amendmen, and I regret, therefore, that I must display a little more rigidity in this one. It is a very serious objection that he makes. He wants to keep the decision of the country in suspense, not for eight days only, but for fourteen days. The noble Marquess has quite rightly stated that seventeen days will elapse between the nomination day and the day of counting the votes, with the extension of the eight days. The noble Marquess thinks that that is not enough time for these letters to come back from the Front. I must point out that in all the distant parts of the field of war men must vote by proxy.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I was speaking of France.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I was aware of that, and I was just explaining the position. We are, therefore reduced to the position in France. The noble Marquess says that the ballot papers cannot be printed before two days have elapsed from the nomination. I understand that it will be possible, in most cases at all events, for them to be printed the day after. The noble Marquess says next that it must take at least a fortnight for the most distant ballot papers to arrive, and he says that we are running it rather fine. I think, however, that there is sufficient time. I can assure him of this, that the Post Office—he says he is advised by very competent people, and no doubt he is—have gone very thoroughly into the matter, and are satisfied that so far as they can see at present a fortnight will give ample time for the ballot papers to go out to France and to come back again and that they have no doubt that the position will be met. There are very great difficulties in extending the period for more than eight days for the counting of the votes. It was with very great difficulty that another place was induced to agree to any extension at all. It is quite clear that it is a very serious thing that the bulk of the votes should be recorded, and that the country should have to wait in suspense some eight days or 14 days according to the noble Marquess, before the decision is promulgated to the country. Under these circumstances, and as the Post Office think that there will be plenty of time for the letters to be returned, I hope that the noble Marquess will not press his Amendment further.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Has the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill sufficiently considered this point, that the papers will go to the unit to which a man belongs, and that, as he knows as well as I do, there are tens of thousands of men who are away from their unit, at school or in hospital or temporarily absent upon some duty? It does not seem to me, notwithstanding what the noble Viscount has said, that eight days is sufficient to cover these cases, and I ask him whether he is quite confident that you are not taking away with one hand what you axe giving with the other in thousands of cases if you leave it at eight days. Remember that this is only a temporary measure.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I hope that the Government will give way.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The EARL of CRAWFORD)

May I point out that it is not only to the General Election but to the subsequent by-elections upon an exchange of office by Ministers that this will apply. Therefore by accepting these words you do not merely delay the meeting of Parliament by the difference between eight and fourteen days, but you double it as regards the effective amount of Parliamentary days.

On Question, Amendment negatived,

[The sitting was suspended at eight o'clock and resumed at fifteen minutes past nine.]

Clause 26:

VISCOUNT PEEL

My Amendment on this clause is consequential on a previous decision of your Lordships' House.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 4, omit ("the alternative or").—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27:

Returning Officers.

27. The returning officer at a parliamentary election (other than a university election) shall notwithstanding anything in any other Act, be:—

1. (1) In the case of a parliamentary county which is coterminous with, or wholly contained in, one administrative county, the sheriff;
2. (2) In the case of a parliamentary borough which is coterminous with, or wholly contained in, a county of a city or town having a sheriff, the sheriff, and in the case of the City of London, the sheriffs;
3. (3) In the case of a parliamentary borough which is coterminous with, or wholly contained in, one municipal borough (not being a county of a city or town 1248 having a sheriff), or one metropolitan borough, or one urban district, the mayor or chairman of the council, as the case requires; and
4. (4) In any other case, such sheriff, mayor or chairman, as may be designated for the purpose by the Local Government Board.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

The three Amendments standing in my name on the Paper—in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of Clause 27—are purely drafting.

Amendments moved—

Page 20, line 10, leave out ("parliamentary county") and insert ("constituency")

Page 20, line 13, leave out ("parliamentary borough") and insert ("constituency")

Page 20, line 17, leave out ("parliamentary borough") and insert ("constituency").—(The Earl of Selborne.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 29:

Discharge of Returning Officers' Duties by an Acting Returning Officer.

29. Except as herein provided the duties of returning officer at parliamentary elections (other than a university election) shall be discharged by the registration officer as acting returning officer, and the acting returning officer shall have all the powers, duties, rights and liabilities of the returning officer under any enactments relating to parliamentary elections (including the power of appointing deputies) and those enactments (including this Act) shall have effect accordingly.

This section shall not apply to any duties which the returning officer reserves to himself and undertakes to perform in person.

Any appointment of a deputy by the acting returning officer shall be subject to the approval of the Local Government Board,

A returning officer at a parliamentary election shall not, if all his duties are discharged by the acting returning officer, be disqualified by reason of being returning officer for being a candidate at the election.

VISCOUNT PEEL

The two Amendments standing in my name upon this clause are merely drafting, to remove any doubt as to whether the returning officer has power to appoint deputies.

Amendments moved—

Page 21, lines 30 and 31, leave out ("(including the power of appointing deputies)")

line 32, at end insert ("and the acting returning officer shall have power to appoint deputies").—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 30:

Division of constituency into polling districts, and provision of polling places.

30.—(1) It shall be the duty of the council, whoso clerk is the registration officer for any constituency or by whom the registration officer is appointed, as occasion requires, to divide the constituency into polling districts, and to appoint polling places for the polling districts in such manner as to give to all electors in the constituency such reasonable facilities for voting as are practicable in the circumstances.

(2) If a local authority, or not less than thirty electors in a constituency, make a representation to the Local Government Board that the polling districts or polling places do not meet the reasonable requirements of the electors in the constituency, or any body of electors, the Local Government Board shall consider the representation, and may, if they think fit, direct the council whose duty it is to divide the constituency into polling districts, to make such alterations as the Board think necessary in the circumstances, and if the council fail to make those alterations within a month after the direction is given, may themselves make the alterations, and any alterations so made shall have effect as if they had been made by the council.

In this provision the expression "local authority" means as respects any constituency the council of any county, borough urban or rural district, or parish wholly or partly situate in the constituency, or the parish meeting of any parish so situate where there is no parish council.

(3) On the exercise of any powers given by this section the council by whom the powers are exercised shall send to the Local Government Board a report, and publish in the constituency a notice, showing the boundaries of any polling districts or the situation of any polling places constituted as a result of the exercise of the power.

(4) An election shall not be questioned by reason of any non-compliance with the provisions of this section or any informality relative to polling districts or polling places.

(5) This section shall not apply to university constituencies.

(6) Nothing in this section shall affect any polling districts or polling places constituted before the passing of this Act until occasion arises for the exercise of the powers given by this section.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE had on the Paper an Amendment in subsection (1), after "It shall be the duty," to insert "of the London County Council for any constituency in the administrative county of London, and elsewhere." The noble Marquess said: This was an Amendment which I brought up at the Committee stage, and the noble Viscount (Lord Peel) promised to reconsider the matter at the present stage. I, therefore, placed the Amendment on the Paper again with a view to a reconsideration of the whole subject. The point is that hitherto the London County Council has been the authority for all arrangements connected with polling districts and polling places. As the Bill stands, that power is transferred to the borough council, and for reasons which must be admitted in them selves to be strong, all the more that the duty of appointing polling places has been, since the Bill reached this House, taken away from the returning officer and given to the council whose officer has charge of registration. It therefore places that power in the hands of the borough councils of London. I think it possible that the noble Viscount may not be prepared to accept the Amendment in the form in which I have again put it down on the Paper, and which would transfer the whole power back to the London County Council. In that case I hope he will be prepared to accept a modified form of the Amendment, which would cause the County Council to be consulted beforehand in all eases where the districts have to be allotted by the new authority. It is obviously advantageous that that should be done, because the polling districts have to be set out not merely for the Parliamentary but also for the municipal elections, and it is desirable that there should he a regular process of discussion and agreement between the two authorities concerned. Therefore I shall be prepared, if the noble Viscount is willing, to move an Amendment in that sense. I have some words here which I can by leave of the House state, if the noble Viscount thinks that some such modification might be acceptable.

VISCOUNT PEEL

In reply to the noble Marquess, I should be very glad to accept a modification in the sense he suggests.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

The words which I have prepared in case the noble Viscount should take that view were these, "Provided that before dividing any constituency in the administrative county of London into polling districts the authority therefor shall send a draft of any scheme for that purpose to the London County Council and shall take into consideration any representations made to them by that Council." I think perhaps I ought to add that there are some other districts in the country to which a similar provision might be applied. There are some eases in which although the need is not quite so marked as it is here—an urban district or urban districts has been formed into a county constituency, and in that case the controlling authority whose clerk is the registration officer for the constituency would be the council of the county. I think there is a case in Essex, and perhaps in some other county, and it may be that there also the urban district council would be glad to be taken into consultation before the polling stations are fixed. It is a point with which the noble Viscount will be able to deal, but so far as I am concerned I hope he will be prepared to accept the words which I have stated.

Amendment moved— Page 22, after line 7, insert ("provided that before dividing any constituency in the administrative county of London into polling districts the authority therefor shall send a draft of any scheme for the purpose to the London County Council and shall take into consideration any representations made to them by that Council").—(The Marquess of Crewe.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I am very glad to accept those words. I think they give a power which is very valuable.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF LICHFIELD moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Earl said: I feel I owe an explanation to your Lordships and my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill for not having brought this Amendment forward in Committee. The action I am taking is on behalf of the County Councils Association, which only met the day after this clause was inserted in your Lordships' House by Viscount Peel. I took an early opportunity of telling my noble friend of the course which I wish to pursue, so that he should be able to see what attitude he would adopt towards it. The subsection I move to omit gives for the first time the Local Government Board an over-riding authority over the county councils in their discretion of appointing polling districts and polling places. The county councils have held this power under the Local Government Act of 1888. It was conferred on the Justices in Quarter Sessions by the Representation of the People Act, 1867, and in 1888 the duties were transferred to the county councils. Up to now they have carried through their duties with impartiality, I believe, and, so far as I know, absolutely without any complaint. If your Lordships will turn to the subsection you will see that it is proposed that any body of thirty electors or the parish council or district council may appeal to the Local Government Board without reference to the county council in the first instance, and the Local Government Board shall consider the representations and may if they think fit direct the council whose duty it is to divide the constituency into polling districts to make such alterations as the Board think necessary in the circumstances. and then— if the council fail to make those alterations within a month after the direction is given, may themselves make the alterations, and any alterations so made shall have effect as if they had been made by the council, I notice that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill merely introduced this new clause and did not say much about it in his opening remarks in Committee. You have in this case, without previous reference to the county council, the right of thirty electors or the parish council or so on to make a representation to the Local Government Board, who, if they think fit, shall direct the council. The county councils strongly object to this over-riding of the powers they have hitherto exercised. They are, of course, local authorities elected by the people. They know the local circumstances, and they make impartially such arrangement as they think may be best for the district over which they exercise control. Now it is proposed to take that entirely out of their hands without any reference to them whatever, and to allow the Local Government Board to direct the alterations if they see fit.

I put it to your Lordships, Do you consider that the Local Government Board is a better final authority to deal with this matter than the county council? Surely the Local Government Board, with its two representatives of the Government, will be tinged with the political feelings of the Government of the day, and will be much more likely to find difficulty in giving an impartial decision than are the county councils. Again, the Local Government Board will not be nearly so well acquainted with local circumstances. The county councils, in fixing polling places, will look at the requirements of the district, the accommodation that can be provided at these places, railway facilities, etc., and then make their orders. Now it is proposed to override them and to allow the Local Government Board to tell them they are to alter their orders. Another point in this subsection is this. It says, "if the council fail to make those alterations within a month after the direction is given"—and I should like to point out that there will be very great difficulty in carrying out any order within one month. As a rule county councils meet quarterly, and the members of county councils make their arrangements for attending. It has been found, in practice that if a county council tries to call an emergency meeting at short notice it is difficult to get a proper attendance, and therefore I submit that the time of one month is quite inadequate to enable a county council properly to carry out an order they might receive. Again, it might seem that the least that could be expected would be that the Local Government Board would consult a county council before they made any final order, but there is nothing whatever in the subsection about consulting the county council before this final order is made. The whole matter is taken away from county councils and vested in the Local Government Board, who may, on the representation of thirty electors, alter all the arrangements which the county councils have made. I am instructed by the County Councils Association to offer strong objections to the subsection as inserted, and I hope your Lordships will support me, and them, by deciding that it would be better to leave this subsection out of the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 8, leave out subsection (2).—(The Earl of Lichfield.)

LORD BUCKMASTER

I feel sure your Lordships appreciate the reason which was given by the noble Earl for moving this Amendment at this stage of the Bill, instead of moving it when the Bill was in Committee. I am equally certain that your Lordships with myself, will appreciate the reasonable and effective arguments by which the noble Earl has supported his Amendment, but, none the less. I hope your Lordships will not accept it.

Let us see what this subsection proposes to effect, and why it is that the noble Earl on behalf of the County Councils Association, desires to omit it. I think any one who has had experience in connection with elections knows quite well that there are frequently cases of great hardships in scattered districts owing to the arrangements of polling districts, or polling places, in such manner as to render it extremely inconvenient for many of the voters to record their votes. That I believe to be a condition of things which every one would be anxious as far as possible to remove. It is obviously undesirable that elections should be determined by the facilities which one candidate or the other may have for bringing voters to the poll. It would be far better in my view that every elector were bound to secure for himself the means of conveyance to the poll, and that the polling places should be so arranged that it should not be beyond the powers of any able-bodied man to walk there himself. The noble Earl has pointed out that in the past the local authorities have been responsible for the duty referred to in this subsection. I agree; but it is also perfectly true, and I think everyone must know it, that their action has caused in many cases great complaint. This subsection is framed for the purpose of enabling a group of people—30 in number—to represent their grievance to what is regarded as an independent authority for the purpose of seeing whether the polling districts and the polling places as fixed by the local authority cannot be more conveniently arranged to suit the general convenience of all the inhabitants in the district.

The noble Earl suggests it is possible that the Local Government Board at any particular moment may be under the political control of either one Party or the other. He was perfectly fair about it and did not suggest it would be any particular Party, but either Party. I hardly think that would have great weight in their determining what course of action they ought to follow; but if it be true that political considerations may affect their judgment, how much more strongly would they affect the judgment of a local authority, which we know perfectly well under the present system is, as I regard most unfortunately, elected time after time on a strictly Party programme. We know quite well that in many cases the different political organisations are kept active, the registers are kept up, the voters are kept in touch with the different political agents, by means of fighting these very local elections; and whatever political influences may affect the judgment of the Local Government Board, I cannot help thinking it would be far more likely, if it were brought into play at all, to affect more strongly the action of the local body.

The noble Earl's Amendment is to omit the subsection altogether. That is to say, to leave these polling districts and polling places, when once determined, determined for ever so that the Local Government Board or any other authority can have no influence whatever in saying whether the determination is right or wrong. There are further Amendments standing in the name of Lord Galway which modify this provision to a certain extent, but these are not the Amendments moved by the noble. Earl, who is anxious that the whole subsection should be omitted. I think, even with the best judgment, it may well be that in certain cases the local authority may not give full effect to the reasonable convenience and desires of groups of people within their area; and, after all, all that this subsection does is to enable cases of that kind first to be brought to the attention of the Local Government Board, and then, if the Local Government Board upon examination thinks the complaint just, to enable the Board to remedy it.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I entirely understand the reasons which prevented the noble Earl opposite from moving this Amendment at an earlier stage, and I need hardly say that any representation brought forward by so powerful and influential a body as the County Councils Association will have very earnest consideration from His Majesty's Government. I am quite ready to say also, because I think it is nothing less than the truth, that in discharging these duties county councils have had very few complaints on the whole as to their action. But the noble Earl fully recognises that the number of electors is going to be largely increased, and that the question of bringing the polling stations, and so on, within easy reach is a matter which interests a very great number of persons. The question of some appeal to the Local Government Board has been very strongly pressed, and I should be rather sorry to so far accede to the desire of the noble Earl as to remove any opportunity of appeal from these smaller bodies to the Local Government Board; but I do feel, from the observations that have fallen from the noble Earl, that it is rather, so to say, a little derogatory to the position of the county councils that these appeals should be entirely over their heads to the Local Government Board. I was going to make this suggestion to him. I do not know whether it would meet his views to introduce in line 13 the word "may" "the local Government Board shall consider the Report and may after consultation with the Council." That is to say, the Local Government Board would not come to its decision merely on the representations of the smaller bodies. I do not suppose that it would in any case, but this would lay upon it a statutory duty to consult the council concerned before it arrives at its decision. That, I think, would fully preserve the right of appeal, and at the same time would maintain the position and dignity of the county councils. If the noble Earl was ready to withdraw his Amendment, I should be very glad to insert words of that kind.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

If this suggestion were accepted, and if this clause is to be operative at all, surely the Local Government Board is to take action after consulting the county council. If the county council objected to the action which the Local Government Board proposed to take, it would be more derogatory to their position and character than even if the other method had been adopted.

LORD BURNHAM

These cases of interference with local governing bodies are very numerous, and the supervision of the Local Government Board is exercised in many directions. At the same time it ought not, I think, to be called upon to take this course except on the representation of a substantial body of electors. I cannot think that thirty electors as compared with the numbers of the new constituencies are a body of men worth taking into account. What I fear is that everywhere some small and factious collection of men will make representations of this kind, and that the Local Government Board would be put to the expense of a local inquiry, with all the paraphernalia of a court, without any reasonable cause. The Local Government Board can only satisfy itself as to the genuineness of a complaint by such inquiry. I suggest that thirty is too small a number, and that there ought to be a substantial number of electors.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

It seems to me, since the noble Viscount opposite is not prepared to accept this Amendment, that the first and third of the Amendments which are on the Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Galway would meet the case pretty fairly; and it is to be noted that the noble Lord and my noble friend behind me do not raise the point to which my noble friend Lord Burnham alluded. So far as the polling places are concerned, I think that it is desirable that a comparatively small number of electors should be able to make a protest.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

On this Amendment I am afraid I take a more extreme view than my noble friend Lord Burnham. I do not know from what quarter this subsection arose, or from whom those strong expressions of opinion have come to which the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill referred, but this provision is nakedly aimed at the county councils, not at the borough councils, and that is a very important distinction, as I will show when I consider the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Buckmaster, he said that sometimes there were cases of great hardship, owing to the arrangement of polling districts. I am not here to prove a negative. There may be such cases, but I absolutely deny that they are common, and I quote in evidence of my statement what the noble Viscount in charge of this Bill said, that the action of county councils has met with very few complaints. Now let us pursue the argument of Lord Buckmaster, it is obviously undesirable, he said, that the elections should be determined by the arrangement of the polling districts. Has my noble friend ever known an election determined by the arrangement of the polling districts? Has it ever been alleged that an election has been lost or won by the partisan action—

LORD BUCKMASTER

I cannot recall having used those words, and I certainly did not mean to say that they were determined in that way.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

What my noble friend said was that an election should not be determined by the arrangement of the polling districts. He did not say they had been determined. I ask him whether he ever knew a case where an election had been so determined, and I am sure he cannot give me one. There is no noble Lord in this House who is better acquainted with the Party machine than the noble Viscount, Lord Harcourt. We have all watched with envious malignity his successful efforts against us. I also have been a little, in the Party machine, though I cannot compare my knowledge with his. I never heard of a really serious suggestion that the county councils have been guilty of a breach of trust in this matter of the arrangement of the polling districts, and that is what the insinuation amounts to.

Again, the noble Lord, Lord Buckmaster, said that the action of the local authorities had in many cases caused great complaints. I deny the many cases. I am not prepared to say that there have not been cases—I cannot prove that, but I say there has been no general complaint. Again I cite the testimony of (he noble Viscount in charge of the Bill.

Then the noble and learned Lord used these arguments in favour of the provision to give an appeal to the Local Government Board, and he said how much more strongly would political considerations affect local authorities than the Local Government Board. He said that it might conceivably be possible that some Minister, either Liberal or Conservative, might influence the Local Government Board by political considerations. He did not, however, think that there was very much in this consideration but thought he could not altogether put it aside, and if so how much more likely, he asked, would the same partisanship be shown by the county councils? I do not admit that. He said that the local authorities were very largely elected on Party considerations. That is not true of the county councils generally. It is true of the County Council of the West Biding, which is the one my noble and learned friend, perhaps, knows best, and it may be true of one or two others; but it is absolutely untrue of the main body of the county councils in England. I speak with a knowledge which is not singular; many other noble Lords in this House share it—my noble friend Lord Harris shares it, as also does my noble friend Lord Lichfield.

I say that it is extraordinary the extent to which politics are eliminated from the county work of the county councils of England. The county council on which I sit is mainly a Conservative council; but we have, of course, a large number of Liberals, and some Socialists, on that council. There is a feeling of mutual confidence, and a complete absence of partisanship, that is almost ideal. I say without the slightest hesitation that this question of the fixing of polling districts has never yet been considered in my county from the point of view of the Party to which I belong, nor has it ever been alleged by any Liberal or by any Socialist that it has been so considered. Therefore, if there is an element of human weakness in this matter it is as likely to show itself in the President of the Local Government Board as in the county councils.

But my main objection to this subsection is this. It is another instance of that deliberate tendency now going on of increasing the power of the Offices in Westminster at the expense of local government. A county council is far more fitted to decide where the polling districts in that county shall be than any President of the Local Government Board who ever sat in Whitehall; and I hope that my noble friend who moved this Amendment will not withdraw it. The Government accepted this subsection (I presume from what my friend said) in the House of Commons, because there was pressure, and not much was said on the other side; and they had very strong feelings themselves on the subject. But I resist it because it is an instance of the increasing tendency to put our local government into leading strings from Whitehall. I resent that more than I can say. The Local Government Board in Whitehall, on the appeal of thirty electors out of 15,000 or more in one constituency, may move a very stalwart Conservative or Liberal President of the Local Government Board at Whitehall to take action, either after consultation with them (as my noble friend suggests), or without consultation with them, to upset what is the considered opinion of the county council. This is not our system of local government. This is bureaucracy; and I sincerely trust that my noble friend will insist upon his Amendment.

LORD SHEFFIELD

I wish to support the principle of this Amendment, as I think that we ought at least to have as much as is given by the Amendment of Lord Galway, which goes a good deal further than the Government proposed. But I also wish to support what the noble Lord on my right said—namely, that thirty electors are far too small a unit to set in motion this overruling power. In fact it is much less than thirty, because if you read this clause the net is cast as wide as possible, and every wretched little scrap of a local authority is included, the council of a parish of less than a hundred inhabitants or even of seventy and eighty inhabitants, and not always within a constituency—half in and half out of the constituency. Of course, we know that there is a certain conflict in a county. The county lays out its polling districts with a view to some moderate economy, but also with a view to the convenience of the great mass of the electors as a whole. But you may have some little group on the edge of a constituency, or, as we find in those parts of Gloucestershire and Worcestershire which are mixed up with other counties, you may have a parish with only 200 inhabitants asking to have a polling district of their own. The county council will probably set up polling districts of 400 to 500, and I think the county council should have the right to say "You are too small a nucleus of electors to be entitled to claim a polling booth all to yourselves." I think if the Government are not prepared to give the larger concession, we may have to consider on the Third Reading an Amendment to cut out some of these absurdly small units. I hope, however, that somebody on behalf of the Government' will go a great deal further than the noble Viscount has done to meet this excess of bureaucratic interference.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

The noble Lord who has just spoken has talked as if we were only dealing with polling districts. We are dealing with polling places, which is a matter that affects individuals. He also spoke of the sub-clause as if an appeal was only to be made by thirty electors, or by the parich council, but if the sub-clause were omitted the borough, urban, and rural district councils would all be prohibited from making their representation. After all, the Government are removing from the Bill the provision by which a man was entitled, if within a district in which there were 200 voters, to have a polling place within at least three miles of him. That is being removed, and you are giving him very little protection. He may not be protected by the county council at all, and I think he should have an appeal to the Local Government Board.

LORD PARMOOR

I hope the Amendment will be pressed to a Division. The real question is which is the best body to decide a matter of this sort—the local body which is acquainted with local conditions, namely, the county council, or the Central Department at Whitehall. I have no hesitation in saying that the local body ought to have the decision and not the central body at Whitehall. I wish to say one word with reference to what was said about county councils. I served on a county council for nearly twenty-five years, and I entirely dissent from the suggestion which was made that in matters of this kind the county council acts on any other than administrative principles. Why I desire that the local authority should not be overridden is in order that that method of action which I now believe all county councils follow in matters of this kind should not be displaced. We ought to leave them the responsibility of that, and they are the best body to deal with that responsibility. As regards the Bill as it stands, six people at a parish meeting might demand a local inquiry by the Local Government Board. Surely that is extravagant. I must say, on the point of principle, that I want the county council to be left alone. It is one of the evil tendencies of modern legislation to override the responsibility of our local authorities, and I think that responsibility ought to be maintained, especially as regard administrative matters of this sort. Therefore I hope the noble Earl will not accept any compromise but will press his Amendment to a Division.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I shall say one word on this. There has been some difference of opinion, I think. Some noble Lords wish to omit the whole of the subsection and place the duty on the county council, while others are ready to accept some modification. I was going to suggest that, if it met the noble Earl, that I would accept the words in the name of Lord Gal way "after application to, and refusal by, the county council." That would mean that, in the first case, the appeal should go to the county council, and only after it had been thoroughly looked into and the county council had not satisfied the complainants, should the matter go to the Local Government Board; or, it might be possible to omit the number of electors, which has been objected to. I do not think there is much good in increasing the number to fifty. I would suggest omitting the number and leaving it to the local authorities and not to the electors to make a complaint. I do not know whether that would meet the views of noble Lords.

THE EARL OF LICHFIELD

There might be a parish council with only five or six members in attendance on the day.

VISCOUNT PEEL

But they are a representative body.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

I am afraid the suggestion just made by the noble Viscount opposite is hardly likely to meet the wishes of noble Lords amongst whom I sit at this moment, though I quite recognise the desire of the noble Viscount to meet us so far as he can. Personally, I must say my sympathy is entirely with the noble Earl sitting beside me when he referred to the extreme paucity of members of your Lordships' House who are present at this moment. I share with him the opinion that when we have to decide such an important question as this, it is very desirable that we should have a larger attendance than we have. But, quite apart from that, I entirely agree with him when he says that the action of the county councils, generally speaking, has been almost universally approved, and I am bound to say, when we consider also the entire freedom from Party politics which governs their proceedings as a general rule, it is rather unfortunate that in a case of this sort we should be asked to go back again to the Local Government Board in London. I do not wish to say any word of disparagement of a very estimable Department, of which I was at one time chief myself, but that does not in the least make me differ in my views from the noble Earl.

What are the objections to the proposal? The noble Viscount, Lord Harcourt, began just now by saying that if the Government took action under the pressure which is being put upon them it would, I understood him to say, be derogatory. Why? I have heard no reason from the noble Viscount, and, when that pressure is accompanied by admirable arguments such as it has been, I see nothing derogatory in it myself. It was said by Lord Burnham that thirty electors were too small a body to make such a demand, but the objection of the noble Lord was entirely answered, I thought, by the noble Viscount, Lord Harcourt, himself.

I must express my own opinion upon one point, and it grows upon me more and more every day when I think of it. We are very much over-governed by bureaucracy at the present moment, and I do not wish to see it go any further than it has gone. I hope, ere long, it may be very greatly reduced. For instance, there are sixteen different Ministries—I think I am correct in the number—which have been created since the present Government came into power, within barely twelve months. And what for? Half of them overlap each other, and half of them are quarrelling with each other, and making such a mess of public business at such an inestimable cost as no one ever heard or dreamt of before. And we are asked to take another step in the same direction to-night! Why are we to do so, and why on earth cannot we be satisfied? If there is a difficulty in this question why cannot we be satisfied with the county councils, of whom every noble Lord who has spoken to-night has agreed as to how admirably their work has been done? I could not resist saying these few words, because I feel strongly about it, and I most earnestly hope that the noble Earl will press his Amendment to a division. If that is not sufficient, why then we shall be perfectly right to consider the suggestions that have been made by the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill and deal with them as may be desirable afterwards.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I hope the noble Earl will not divide. I really think the noble Viscount has somewhat exaggerated the crimes of the Government. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who said that this was an illustration of the deliberate tendency to centralise power in Whitehall to the detriment of local authorities.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I did not mean that it was the deliberate tendency of the Government, but that it was the tendency of the day.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

The noble Viscount who has just sat down says it is an illustration of the megalomania of this Government. This was not proposed at the instance of the Government at all. It was not in the original Bill.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

It was moved and supported by the Government.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

It was pressed upon the Government by unofficial members of the House of Commons. Parliament asked for it, and not Ministers.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Hear, hear. Quite true.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I shall be very much surprised if the Local Government Board desires to take these powers for any satisfaction that it may obtain from them by intervening between a small local council and a county council as to whether this or that school is to be a polling station. Really, to do the Government justice, do not charge members of the Government with such palpable absurdities as that.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I did not

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

These are quite small things, tiresome things too, that no Government Office desires to take control of. I do not know whether your Lordships desire to cut out the whole of subsection (2). If your Lordships desire it, by all means let it come out; but I would point out that my noble friend has offered, and I think it is material, that the county councils shall be brought in for purposes of application, and only if they refuse should there lie an appeal. I cannot help thinking that this is a very reasonable attitude to take up. However, if your Lordships think it derogatory to county councils that anybody should appeal against their decision, I again should be surprised. County councils do not stand on their dignity; they are an extremely able, shrewd, practical, and businesslike set of men. They do not mind receiving representations from subordinate bodies. On the contrary, my experience is that they are always ready and willing to consider such representations. Again, I do not believe for a moment that the average county council objects to its decisions being revised by the Local Government Board. Perhaps the associations do, perhaps the pundits do, but the average county council and the average member of the county council has no false pride in these matters and is only anxious to do the best by the county. I am entirely in your hands. It is suggested that the number of electors should be excluded altogether so that representation should come only from a local elected body. It is further suggested that no appeal should lie unless the case is not met by the county council. If that is distasteful to the House the Government do not certainly mean to divide, as this was put in at the instigation of private unofficial members of the House of Commons.

LORD PARMOOR

It was put in in this House.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

It was put in by my noble friend here. Perhaps Lord Parmoor forgets that it was raised in the other House.

LORD PARMOOR

I thought you said it was inserted in the other House. It was put in in this House.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I move the adjournment of the debate. I do not think anybody can accuse us of having been loth to work to-night. We have sat two hours and a half later than the House of Commons, and it really is not fair to go on with this Report stage when there are large numbers of our friends with Amendments, or who wish to speak at this stage, absent from the House. I really do not think the proposal requires arguing.

Moved, That the House do now adjourn.—(The Earl of Selborne).

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

It is true that Lord Galway, who has an Amendment on the Paper, is absent, but the Government, I think, are prepared to accept his Amendment, and perhaps there would be no difficulty in moving it from other Benches. But if we turn over the Paper and see the business we might usefully conduct, we shall find that all those who are moving the Amendments for some distance down are already in the House.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I said it was raised in the other House, and under strong pressure there an undertaking was given that it would be put in at a subsequent stage if possible.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I propose to put the Question in the form "That the word 'If'—the first word of the subsection which the noble Earl has moved to delete—stand part of the Bill."

On Question, whether the word "If" shall stand part of the clause?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 20.

CONTENTS.
Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor)	Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)	Hylton, L.
Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.) (L. Privy Seal.)	Harcourt, V. [Teller.]	Islington, L.
	Peel, V.	Ranksborough, L.
		Southwark, L.
Crewe, M.	Buckmaster, L. [Teller.]	Stanmore, L.
Lytton, E.	Colebrooke, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Camperdown, E.	Atkinson, L.	Hatberton, L.
Grey, E. [Teller.]	Balfour, L.	Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Lichfield, E. [Teller.]	Beresford of Metemmeh, L.	Mouteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)
Lucan, E.	Burnham, L.	Muir Mackenzie, L.
Sandwich, E.	Courtney of Penwith, L.	Parmoor, L.
Selborne, E.	Faringdon, L.
	Harris, L.	Stanley of Alderley, (L. Sheffield.
Chaplin, V.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Not all those who want to debate them.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

Earl Grey has four Amendments, and he is here. Lord Selborne, with two Amendments, is here also. I have a small one which will be accepted. Then there are Amendments by Viscount Chaplin, Lord Muir Mackenzie, several by Viscount Peel, others by Earl Grey and Lord Balfour It cannot be said, therefore, that we are deprived of the presence of noble Lords who have put down Amendments.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I do not think it really depends on who is here and who is not, but in the last Division there were 20 on one side and 14 on the other—that is, only 4 more than would have involved, under the Standing Orders, the adjournment of the debate to another day. If there are one or two points coming on of importance we do not know whether there will be a Division challenged or not; but if a Division is challenged, any moral force which the result of the Division has for subsequent consideration in another place is entirely lost, and I really do not think it is fair to the House, as a House, to go on in the circumstances.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I very much regret that both Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Lord Selborne should have said it was unfair. I assure the House that the last thing I should wish to do would be what any noble Lord had a right to call unfair.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

If I gave that impression, I withdraw it. I did not mean that.

THE EARL OP CRAWFORD

It was the words, and not the impression. The noble Earl started by saying that it was unfair, and Lord Balfour of Burleigh repeated it.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I said it was not fair to the House.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I think we might occupy a little more time in discussing this Bill. What Lord Harcourt said is true. So far as noble Lords who have Amendments to move are concerned, they are all here. As regards pages 10 to 15, all noble Lords are present in whose names the Amendments stand. On page 16 there are two Amendments standing in the names of noble Lords who are absent. On page 17 there is one. So far as pages 18 and 19 are concerned all the noble Lords are in the House; also page 20; and on page 21 there are Amendments standing in the names of noble Lords who are absent, but one Amendment is to leave out the word "Camlachie" and insert "Denistoun." With a very early Easter and extreme financial pressure in the House of Commons and with three or four more important Bills before your Lordships, I cannot help thinking that if possible we ought to try and make a little more progress to-night.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I confess that I am somewhat moved by the appeal of the noble Earl (Lord Crawford). On one or two of the evenings on which we have been discussing this Bill—except on the two occasions when proportional representation and woman suffrage, which excited the sentiments of a great number of your Lordships, were on—I am not certain that the number attending during the later hours of the evening was very much greater than it is at present. In these circumstances I confess that I am rather disposed to agree with the noble Earl. So far as the contents of what we have to consider are concerned, it is always possible to postpone any clause of which it is not desired for one reason or another to engage in the consideration at the moment; and if any point arises on which some noble Lords think that a full or fair consideration cannot be given, I am sure that His Majesty's Government would agree that the clause ought to be postponed. But there is a great deal of almost urgent business to be carried on, and I should have thought that at this fairly early hour we should be well occupied in conducting it.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

I am sorry to differ from the noble Marquess on this question. As to who is here or who is not here, it is a question of the absence of our respective supporters: Now, among the Amendments on the Paper, no one appears to have seen one that is standing in my name. With all respect, it is an Amendment of very great importance, because it is an attempt on my part to revive an ancient power belonging to this House of which it was deprived by action in the House of Commons under wholly exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. I had the Amendment on the Paper in Committee, and I greatly regret that I was prevented from moving it then by a somewhat serious accident which occurred to me just as I was starting to come down to the House. I have every reason to believe that, if I had had an opportunity of stating my case, the decision of this House would have been different from what it was. The Amendment was only just defeated, and it would not be in order for me to tell the reason why I think it would be carried on this occasion. I have every desire to put that case before the House when there are the usual number of noble Lords present. We now have a singularly small House, and my recollection is that during these debates in Committee we have had a larger attendance than I ever recollect. In the circumstances I should be very sorry to be called upon to move my Amendment to-night, and I think the Government would do well to make this concession. With regard to the Third Reading being taken on the same day, that is a matter which of course we shall have to consider later.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

The noble Viscount's Amendment is on Clause 39. Could we not go on until we reach that Clause?

LORD HARRIS

I propose as a comp-promise that we continue the debate, but that if a Division is challenged we should then adjourn.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I am entirely in the hands of the House. If we could go on, there are nine clauses intervening between the point of the present discussion and Lord Chaplin's Amendment. I wish to press upon your Lordships that to-morrow we have to deal with an extremely technical Bill, and Lord Sandhurst wishes to move a number of highly technical and difficult Amendments. We also may have the Man-Power Bill before us.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I would like to point out that in my opinion the business before the House is not unimportant. There is a particularly important Amendment after Clause 39 standing in the name of Lord Muir Mackenzie.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

It is out of order.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

That is a matter of opinion, on which the House has to decide. With regard to the Third Reading, we will do everything we can to finish the Report stage to-morrow, but there may be Amendments put down for Third Reading, and I do not wish the noble Earl to be under any misapprehension. I can give no pledge for my Party that we will agree to the Third Reading being taken to-morrow.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I do not ask for any pledge, but merely that we should occupy a little time to-night, instead of talking about it.

LORD HATHERTON

May I suggest to your Lordships that we should continue our business?

On Question, Motion for adjournment negatived.

Clause 31:

Place of election.

31. The place of election shall be fixed for each constituency (other than a university constituency) by the returning officer, and shall be—

1. (a) if the constituency is a parliamentary borough or a division of a parliamentary borough, some place within the borough;
2. (b) if the constituency is a parliamentary county or a division of a parliamentary county, some place within the county or within a parliamentary borough adjoining the county.

EARL GREY

The Amendments standing in my name are all consequential.

Amendments moved— Page 23, lines 4 and 5, leave out ("is a parliamentary borough or a division of a parliamentary") and insert ("is, or the major part of the constituency is contained in, a muncipal"). Page 23, line 7, leave out from ("(b)") to ("some") in line 8, and insert ("in any other case") Page 23, line 9, leave out ("county") and insert ("constituency"), and leave out ("parliamentary") and insert ("municipal") Page 23, line 10, leave out ("county") and insert ("constituency").—(Earl Grey.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 36:

Redistribution of seats.

36.—(1) Each of the areas mentioned in the first column of the First Part of the Ninth Schedule to this Act shall be a parliamentary borough returning the number of members specified opposite thereto in the said Schedule, and where so provided in the Schedule shall be divided into the divisions specified therein, and each such division shall return one member.

(2) Each of the areas mentioned in the first column of the Second Part of the Ninth Schedule to this Act shall be a parliamentary county returning the number of members specified opposite thereto in the said Schedule, and where so provided in the Schedule shall be divided into the divisions specified therein, and each such division shall return one member.

(3) Each of the universities and combinations of universities mentioned in the Third Part of the Ninth Schedule to this Act shall be a constituency returning the number of members specified opposite thereto in the said Schedule.

(4) The distribution of seats in Great Britain under this Part of this Act shall take the place of the distribution of seats existing at the time of the passing of this Act; and all writs for parliamentary elections and other documents consequent upon the writs or relating to parliamentary elections or the registration of electors shall be framed and expressed in such manner and form as may be necessary for carrying into effect the provisions of this Act.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved two Amendments. The noble Earl said: These Amendments are also consequential.

Amendments moved— Page 25, line 26, leave out from beginning of the line to ("returning") in line 27, and insert ("of the Ninth Schedule to this Act shall be a separate constituency") Page 25, line 31, leave out subsections (2) and (3).—(The Earl of Selborne)

On Question, Amendments agreed to

Clause 38:

Alteration of polling districts where necessary.

38. The council having power to divide a constituency into polling districts shall, not later than one month after the passing of this Act, take into consideration the division of the constituency into polling districts, and make any re-arrangements of those districts which it appears necessary to make as a consequence of alterations effected by this Act.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT moved after, "districts," where that word last occurs to insert "and of polling places." The noble Viscount said: I think the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, will probably agree that it is necessary to reinsert these words, which were omitted accidently after his acceptance of an Amendment of mine.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 31, after ("districts") insert ("and of polling places").—(Viscount Harcourt.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I shall be glad to accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

My Lords, we have come now to the Amendment which the noble Viscount, Lord Harcourt, suggested was a reasonable point at which to stop this debate. I am speaking now of the Amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin. It is an Amendment which deals with the question as to whether the two Houses of Parliament are to have an equal right to object, by Resolution, to Rules or Regulations laid before the Houses of Parliament. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, moved this Amendment before, when the noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin, was not able to be present. It is a very important matter, and affects the privileges of this House. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave a ruling, at the last debate, of very far-reaching consequences, and we desire, with the utmost respect, to discuss that ruling and all the questions which arise from it. I maintain that it is really, I do not use the word unfair, but that it is quite impossible to carry on this debate, and as the noble Marquess Lord Salisbury has just arrived, I hope he will agree with me that the, time has come to adjourn. We already have had one Motion for the adjournment, which has been withdrawn, and I beg to make the Motion again that this debate be adjourned.

Moved, that the debate be adjourned.—

LORD BUCKMASTER:

If this matter requires a larger House for its consideration, then I should be prepared to move that it be considered at a later stage; but there is no reason why the House should adjourn.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

My Lords, the House settled, five minutes ago, not to adjourn.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

The noble Viscount, Lord Harcourt, suggested that we should adjourn at this point.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I do not suggest it. I suggest that we should continue our business, and I implore the House to go on with the business, Since our conversation about an adjournment, which took up nearly half an hour, the noble Lords Lord Lamington, Lord Somerleyton, and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, have come into the House. Every noble Lord who has an Amendment on the Order Paper is in the House at the present moment. Our House is small, but some of your Lordships will remember that during last week our numbers were not materially bigger than they are now. I cannot help thinking that, with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and the noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin, in the House, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor present to answer these highly technical legal questions, we might make some progress.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I ask your Lordships not to legislate in the absence of Peers who are interested in the Bill.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

The House of Commons adjourned three hours ago.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

Yes, after it had finished its business.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Is there any Motion before the House?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Lord Selborne has moved that the House do now adjourn.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I cannot do much more than repeat what I have already said. I have been a member of this House very much longer than most noble Lords here, and the greater part of the business I have seen conducted has been gone through with not a larger House than this. That I say quite categorically.

Clause 39:

Regulations to be laid before Parliament.

39.—(1) All rules, regulations, or provisions made by Order in Council under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith; and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such rule, regulation, or provision is laid before it, praying that the rule, regulation, or provision may be annulled. His Majesty in Council may annul the rule, regulation, or provision and it shall thenceforth by void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done thereunder.

(2) Any Order in Council under this Act may be revoked or varied as occasion requires by any subsequent Order in Council.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out from "if" ("and if an address is presented to His Majesty"] to the end of the subsection, and to insert "neither House of Parliament within the next subsequent ten days on which that House has sat next after any such rule, regulation, or provision is laid before it, passes a resolution adverse thereto, it shall have effect as if it were enacted in this Act, and the validity of any proceedings which may in the meantime have been taken under any such rule, regulation, or provision shall not be prejudiced by the subsequent passing of a resolution adverse thereto."

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I may say at once that I am quite willing

On Question, whether the Debate shall be now adjourned?

Their Lordships divided: Contents. 14; Not-Contents, 21.

CONTENTS.
Salisbury, M.	Chaplin, V.	Burnham, L.
		Courtney of Penwith, L.
Camperdown, E.	Atkinson, L.	Faringdon, L.
Grey, E,[Teller.]	Balfour, L.	Monteagle. L. (M. Sligo.)
Sandwich, E.	Beresford of Metemmeh, L.	Parmoor, L.
Selborne, E. [Teller.]
NOT-CONTENTS.
Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Harcourt, V.	Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)(L. Privy Seal.)	Peel, V.	Muir Mackenzie, L.
		Queenborough, L.
	Buckmaster, L.	Ranksborough, L.
Crewe, M.	Colebrooke, L.	Somerleyton, L.
Lucan, E.	Denman, L.	Southwark, L.
Lytton, E.	Harris, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.
	Hatherton, L.
Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)	Hylton, L. [Teller.]	Stanmore. L. [Teller]
	Islington, L.	Suffield, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

to accept twenty-one days instead of the ten in my Amendment. The Amendment that I am now moving is a provision that was contained year ago in the Agricultural Rates Act. At that time we were engaged in a period of great stress and struggle against the most violent and prolonged opposition that I ever remember in fifty years of political life, and I accepted ten days in order to help to get the Bill carried against this obstruction, in which I was ultimately successful. At that time there was no guillotine, and the closure was very different from what it was in after years. But such was the obstruction at that time, that, although it was only a Bill of seven clauses. I think we were occupied four or five nights, for all-night, sittings, the opposition being led by the present Primes Minister, who was then sitting below the gangway, and supported by the Leader of the Opposition, the father of my noble friend Lord Harcourt. In those circumstances it was that I made that concession, and I am perfectly prepared to accept the longer period which is in the Bill now. I greatly regret that owing to my enforced absence when this question was raised in Committee I was unable to make the statement which I propose to make tonight.

We all agree that the practice of late years of leaving very important questions which have not been sanctioned by Parliament to be dealt with by Regulations, has assumed dimensions in these days which are exceedingly undesirable. No one, I am sure, can contradict that. It is a comparatively recent growth. It began during the stages of the Agricultural Rates Bill. It was at that date a practically new departure from the system of Regulations which had been hitherto pursued, and since then it has become common, and it became common after the passing of the Budget of 1909 in which, for the first time, with three exceptions only of which I am aware, it was ever put in force. Those three cases were as follows. One was the case of an Army Bill, an emergency Bill, to be used for taking land by compulsion in case of war. That was a very natural and necessary proposal. The second was the case of the Old Age Pensions Act in 1908; and the third, the Local Government Act of 1898, making provisions applicable to Ireland, of which I did not know until I was told by my noble and learned friend Lord Atkinson.

My attention was first called to these Rules upon a clause during the passage of the Finance Act of 1909, and it arose in this way. Mr. Alfred Lyttleton, who was then Home Secretary, was in charge; of the House of Commons on that day. It was pointed out that the Bill contained no provision for laying Commissioners' Rules on the Tables of the Houses of Parliament. When the Finance Bill of 1909 was introduced by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, although there were many things to be done by Regulations, which were afterwards done, no provision whatever was made with regard to their being laid on the Table. Mr. Lyttleton moved an Amendment very much in the sense of the Amendment which I am moving now. The Chancellor of the Exchequer recognised the principle, but objected to the delay that would be caused by the Amendment in that form. As an alternative Amendment he proposed that the Rules should be laid before both Houses, and, if an Address were presented by both Houses within the next thirty days, His Majesty might annul them without prejudice to anything done therein. Hitherto, as I say, the general rule in the majority of eases, to the best of my knowledge and belief, was that this objecton could be raised by either House, and if an Address to the Crown were carried it was effective and the Regulation was stopped.

The House will, of course, perceive that the proposal made by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was nothing but a proposal to put it in the hands and the power of the Cabinet itself to pass any Regulations they liked, or to stop, or not to move, anything which interfered with the powers of the Cabinet. That was an extraordinary departure, because its effect was that any number of things could be done by the Cabinet under the Regulations, having the force of law, which had never received the sanction of Parliament. On these grounds we determined to oppose it. The next stage was this. I rose to support Mr. Lyttleton. The Chancellor of the Exchequer took great exception to this, and it was urged in the House of Commons that I had forgotten the precedent which I myself set in the Agricultural Rates Act, the form of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed to have followed exactly, adding— That Act was for expending two million pounds. This Bill is to raise money. At any rate I followed exactly the precedent which the right hon. gentleman now denounces. Upon examination that statement turned out to be absolutely incorrect. There was a vote taken and the Amendment was withdrawn.

What was the next stage? At that time I was suffering from illness, which became worse, and I was not in the House again for many months but I obtained the assistance of an excellent substitute in Sir Edward Carson, who, with the approval of the then Leader of the Party, Mr. Balfour, raised the question again on August 18, the, first vote on this subject having been taken on July 14. What happened then? Sir Edward Carson pointed out that "the whole difference between the two right hon. gentlemen was as to whether either House ought to have the power to reject these Rules." He went on to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the right hon. gentleman—meaning myself—had forgotten the precedent which he himself had set, and that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had added, "I have followed exactly the form in that Act, almost in the same words." The Chancellor of the Exchequer then said he had not the Act before him. All I know is that when he made the statement he was standing with a volume in his hand. Sir E. Carson said the Chancellor of the Exchequer was entirely wrong and what was the reply? An interruption from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said, "I admit that." Then Sir Edward Carson said— I have looked into this Act myself, and it is quite clear that so far from the fact being as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, the precedent is entirely on the other side. The precedent is that when Rules of this character are to be enacted they are laid before Parliament in the form proposed in this Amendment. That is the Amendment which I am moving now. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied to that by giving a promise that a clause would be put down if Sir Edward Carson was not satisfied. Sir Edward Carson replied:— I think the proposition of the right hon. gentleman is a very good one. It was when Clause 3 was under discussion that he promised to bring in a new Clause and we have not yet seen it. I do not know when we will see it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. Nothing more was done about that until quite late in the autumn. On September 30 a new clause was moved by Mr. Hobhouse in these words:— All Rules and Regulations made by the Treasury or by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or Revenue under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if an address be presented "— I need not read the whole of it— to his Majesty by either House of Parliament his Majesty in Council may, if he thinks fit, annul the Rule or Regulation or Provision. That clause was an exact reproduction of the first clause which was moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who admitted he had been entirely wrong. That really is an extremely serious matter. I thought it was quite wrong at the time, and I never varied in that opinion. I always resolved to call attention to the subject whenever I had the opportunity and to endeavour to secure an amendment.

There is another very serious matter. To what has this led? It has led to a whole series of legal difficulties and cases repeated over and over again, as the result of Regulations which could not be controlled, being issued by the Treasury, only to be proved in many cases to be contrary to law. Since that time much work has necessarily had to be abandoned. I would give the House one or two instances, because I desire to make my case perfectly clear. There was a Form called Form IV,—a well-known Form—which was issued in millions, with the result that after pro- tracted and costly litigation it was found to be illegal and not to conform with the Schedule passed by Parliament. The case is given. It was Dyson versus the Attorney-General. Canon Force versus the Attorney-General was another. The same thing happened with another Form—Form VIII. When the validity of this Form was challenged the Courts decided that it was ultra vires. Then there was the notorious case, known, I believe, as the Lumsden case, with which I was not acquainted myself. None of these things could have happened if there had been the power in either House of Parliament to move an Address objecting to the course which was being taken, and the whole thing would have been stopped at once. It deprived the House of a right which it had had for years. And let me add something which is very remarkable, and of which I do not suppose the House has any idea. All these operations of the Finance Act of that year were carried out by these Regulations, which never had the sanction of Parliament, and they have resulted in a waste of money which is something inconceivable. I can vouch for the accuracy of the cost, as it has been published by an association of which the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, is President. I know Lord Desborough was most anxious to be present at this debate and to take an effective part in it.

The figures have been published by the Land Union, and a passage in their Report deals with the cost of the valuation of land, done under Regulations which never had the sanction of Parliament, from 1910 to the 31st of March. 1915. It shows the expenses on the one side and the receipts from the taxation imposed on the other, for 1916, 1917 and 1918—and what is the general result from 1910 to 1918? Comparing the cost of the valuation and the receipts from the three land duties, including the estimates for 1917–18, the expenditure is £4,074,397, and the receipts £876,096; or a total loss to the Exchequer for the years 1910 to 1918 of £3,198,301. I venture to think I have made out an exceedingly strong case which ought to be answered.

What are the objections, the objections raised in the debate the other day? Again I express my profound regret that I was not able to be present. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was the chief objector. He said it was a form which had been in use for a great many years. With the three exceptions which I have mentioned, and with the most profound respect for the noble and learned Lord's opinion, I believe he was wrong, The Lord Chancellor did not say positively that it was so, but he said he was informed that it was the case that the existing provision of which I am complaining had been in force for a great many years. With great respect I must adhere to my opinion that it is wrong, until the contrary has been shown. Secondly, he said it was not desirable that either House on its own motion should have this power. Thirdly, he said, supposing the two Houses differed, what was to be done, what position would arise? There, with great respect, I do not think anything would have happened. If the two Houses had differed the Regulation would have been dead, either House having the power to stop it. That would have been the whole situation which would have followed, and nothing else could have been done except a new Act of Parliament to repeal the arrangement which then had force of law Fourthly, he said it is unconstitutional to give either House the right to abrogate an Order in Council. What is an Order in Council? An Order in Council is nothing whatever but a decision of the Cabinet, and my complaint is that all these matters were taken out of the hands of Parliament altogether and placed entirely at the decision of the Cabinet, with no other power to control them. It is a right, I maintain, which has been invested in cither House for any number of years.

Now I want to ask this question of the noble and learned Lord, Since when has this been his opinion? It was not always his view. When the Agricultural Rates Act was being carried through the House of Commons I was the Minister in charge of the Bill, and the present Lord Chancellor was acting, as Solicitor-General, in my assistance. And I am glad to take this opportunity of saying in public, what I have said often to him in private, that no man was ever more loyally or ably served than I was by him at that time, and that without his assistance under the enormous difficulties which we had to face I do not believe it would have been possible to carry the Bill. Naturally, before this debate I looked back to Some of the old debates and discussions, and what did I find there? The answer to the Lord Chancellor about this not being constitutional and all the other objections he raised to this thing is this—and I am going to quote it from Hansard in his own words. I find that on May 31, 1896, I had accepted ten years instead of twenty-one, and another Amendment on which we were still disputing was being discussed. The Solicitor-General suggested that the Amendment should read, "If neither House of Parliament passes a Resolution within ten days they shall be binding in law until varied in the same manner." Those words will be found in the clause of the Agricultural Rating Bill and in the Amendment which I have put on the Paper to-night. That seems to me to be a very strong case. How was his suggestion followed? The Amendment as amended by the addition of the words suggested by the Solicitor-General was at once agreed to.

I am afraid that I have detained your Lordships at considerable length. It has been, I assure you, very much against my will, and I have been in a position in which I was hardly able to make the effort that I have done. The noble Lord opposite insisted upon going on with the debate. He would not listen to my appeal to allow me to make this statement to-morrow, and I have done, under difficult circumstances, the best that I could do. What I am appealing for is a reversion to the old principle which prevailed at the time to which I have referred, and which embodied one of the most valuable privileges of your Lordships' House and of which you were deprived in 1896 during the passage of the Agricultural Rates Act,—deprived by statements which were made that were absolutely contrary to the fact. I think that I have said enough to make good my case, and I will conclude by moving the Amendment that stands in my name.

Amendment moved— Clause39 page 26, line 35, leave out from ("if") to the end of subsection (1) and insert ("neither House of Parliament within the next subsequent ten days on which that House has sat next after any such rule, regulation, or provision is laid before it, passes a resolution adverse thereto, it shall have effect as if it were enacted in this Act, and the validity of any proceedings which may in the meantime have been taken under any such rule, regulation, or provision shall not be prejudiced by the subsequent passing of a resolution adverse thereto").—(Viscount Chaplin)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Viscount has advocated the Amendment in a very interesting speech which recalls many memories of the pleasant days that we spent together, in another place. I would point out that the Amendment now before the House is absolutely different from that which we discussed the other night. To that Amendment there were insuperable difficulties. It was proposed that if either House of Parliament passed an Address asking the Crown to annul an Order in Council which had been made, thereupon, on presentation of that address, the Order in Council should be annulled. That was a form of legislation which was open to the gravest, possible objection, and I should have been sorry if it had been adopted. The present proposal is on very different lines. If I rightly understand it, it proceeds on the principle that all legislation of this kind by Order in Council is a dedicated authority, and that the dedication is to be to this extent, that if the Order in Council, after it is made and is laid upon the Table of both Houses, runs the gauntlet of those Houses and no Address is presented, it is then to become effectual in law. That is the proposal now before this House.

VISCOUNT CHAPLIN

That was the Amendment in the Agricultural Rates Act.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My noble friend is perfectly accurate. I am pointing out that the Amendment now proposed is very different from that which we were discussing the other night, and is not open to the very serious objection which undoubtedly lay against that Amendment. If the principle of my noble Friend's Amendment is as I have stated, I think he will see that its form is open to very considerable objection, because he goes on to say that if no address is presented within ten days the Rule shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, and the validity of any proceedings taken in the meantime under the rule "shall not be prejudiced by the subsequent passing of a Resolution adverse thereto." It begins by assuming it is to take effect if no Address is presented, and then it goes on to provide that, for the case of proceedings which have already been taken, it would not be affected by a subsequent Address. That, it strikes me, is a flaw in the Amendment of my noble Friend.

But there is on the Paper immediately preceding the Amendment of my noble friend, and Amendment standing in the name of the Marquess of Salisbury, and if I may read the clause in the form in which the noble Marquess intends to amend it, it will read as follows— (1) All rules, regulations, or provisions made by Order in Council under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith; and unless and until an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such rule, regulation, or provision is laid before it, praying that the rule, regulation, or provision may be annulled, such rule, regulation, or provision shall have effect as if enacted in this Act. That seems to be free from the objection which undoubtedly attaches to the proposal in the name of the noble Viscount who has just spoken. I think it might have been better to have adhered to the clause as it stands in the Bill, which undoubtedly has been used with great benefit. I cannot tell my noble friend the precise number, but I am informed by the best authorities that it has been used in a great many cases, and it has been the most usual form of clause for a great many years past.

But I feel sensible that the other night there was a strong demonstration of feeling in the direction that until the Order lies on the Table of the House for a certain time without any adverse Resolution being passed, the Order should not take effect. That, of course, is a perfectly legitimate way of doing the thing, if it is desired. The form of clause dealing with Orders in Council which is incorporated in the Bill, the usual clause would in practice work that way. It would be extremely rare where the sort of reserve power was brought into play for the purpose of not making the Order. In 999 cases out of 1,000, perhaps more, if a Resolution of the House was passed against the Order in Council, the Order in Council would be annulled. There might be very special circumstances which would give the responsible adviser of the Crown pause in taking such a course. Although my noble friend Lord Stuart of Wortley referred to some such case the other night, I do not know what it was, and such cases would be extremely rare. However that may be, although I think it may have been well to adhere to the usual form, I do not think that the advantages are so overwhelming as to make it improper, if your Lordships' House adhere to the view which animated a great many of your Lordships the other night that this clause should take the form which will assert (if I may use the expression) the right of this House without the other to prevent the provision from coming into operation, I do not think there would be anything improper in not taking a Division on the point if that is the general sense of the House.

At the same time I cannot say that we can undertake to make this a Government Amendment. I do not know what the other House may say to this. All I can say is that I am not prepared to oppose it if the general sense of your Lordships' House is in favour of the adoption of this Amendment, which as my noble friend has stated, is in a form which was adopted in the Agricultural Rating Act of 1896, and which is very different indeed from the Amendment which was put down the other night. I understand that the Government cannot undertake to carry it through Parliament, but I should not be prepared to divide the House against the Amendment. For the reasons I gave the other night I think it is better to adhere to the usual form of clause; but in practice it will make very little difference, because, under the usual form of clause, in almost every case the Crown would annul the Order in Council on a Resolution being passed by either House.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am sure that those of your Lordships who have taken a special interest in this particular matter will be very grateful to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for the tone of his speech to-night. He will forgive me for saying that it is not absolutely the same tone as that of the speech which he delivered when he was sitting on the Bench opposite in Committee. That is a very small matter, however; and we are very grateful to him for his acquiescence in the Amendment of my noble friend in the form which he has suggested. I think that my noble friend Lord Chaplin is to be congratulated upon the achievement which he has effected; because there was arrayed against us on the last occasion a phalanx of the most lofty legal talent which might have daunted the heart of my noble friend.

The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has said that he thinks that really the form in which this provision stands in the Bill would have done very well. I am bound to say that I should have said so until last week, but I am afraid that the statements which were made last week have dealt a very serious blow at the received form of this particular provision. I do not know, of course, what view another place may take of this Amendment when it is inserted in the Bill, but if there is any resistence the House of Commons will be told that in the opinion of some of the greatest legal authorities in the country the old received form gives no real security that the Resolution of either House of Parliament will prevail against the decision of the Cabinet. That was the announcement made in Committee, and it was not merely that theoretically it might be so, but a noble and learned Lord said that not only was it theoretically true that the Resolution of one House of Parliament would not be sufficient to annul an Order in Council, but that it ought to be true. He went on to say that it was not right that one House of Parliament should have the power of stopping an Order in Council in the circumstances as they exist in the Bill. That was a tremendous statement, and made a most profound difference in the way in which we regard this particular provision. That will be told to the House of Commons, and they will know that if they restore this clause to the form in which it now stands they will be depriving themselves of any absolute security against the growing power and supremacy of the Cabinet of the day.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I suggest that Viscount Chaplin should withdraw his Amendment in order that the one standing in the name of the Marquess of Salisbury may be moved in its stead. It certainly is free from the blot which does attach to the Amendment of the noble Viscount.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I move my Amendments.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Perhaps it would be more convenient if I read Clause 39, subsection (1), as it will run after being amended in the way proposed by the noble Marquess— (1) All rules, regulations, or provisions made by Order in Council under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith; and unless and until an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such rule, regulation, or provision is laid before it, praying that the rule, regulation, or provision may be annulled, such rule, regulation, or provision shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.

Amendments moved accordingly.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I suggest that we should take the Amendments, none of which require discussion, until we roach Clause 43. Everything is agreed.

VISCOUNT HARCOURT

Is Lord Muir Mackenzie not going to move his Amendment to insert as a new clause: "Where a person has been returned as a member to serve in Parliament, the subsequent acceptance by him from the Crown of any office of profit shall not vacate his seat"?

VISCOUNT PEEL

The noble Lord is not here. Moreover, the Amendment is out of order.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I did not hear what was to be done with the noble, and learned Lord's Amendment.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

it is not in order.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not admit in the least that it is out of order; but the noble Lord is not here, and no doubt he will manage his own affairs.

Clause 40:

VISCOUNT PEEL moved the insertion of an additional interpretation. The noble Viscount said: This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 28, line 16, at end insert: (8) The expression ' dwelling house ' includes any part of a house where that part is occupied separately as a dwelling-house."—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 42:

VISCOUNT PEEL

The Amendments next standing in my name are drafting Amendments. I do not move the new paragraph after line 20.

Amendments moved—

Page 29, line 4, leave out paragraph (a) and insert as a new paragraph (a) The expressions 'borough' and 'municipal borough' mean 'burgh.'

Page 30, lines 39 and 40, leave out ("any person under whom he serves") and insert ("the person in whose service he is").

Page 31, line 16, at end insert ("'lands and heritages' has the game meaning as in the Valuation Acts;")

Page 31, line 26, leave out ("is") and insert ("has")

Page 31, line 27 leave out ("occupying") and insert ("occupied")

Page 31, lines 38 and 39, leave out ("Any person under whom he or she serves") and insert ("the person in whose service he or she is")

Page 31, line 40, have out ("not")

Page 31, line 42, leave out ("except") and insert "only").—(Viscount peel.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD LAMINGTON

In the absence of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in his name. The proposed new subsection is the one which I dealt with the other night in Committee. I understand that the noble Viscount will accept it.

Amendment moved— Page 32, after line 21, insert as a new subsection: (6) The section of this Act relating to provision as to disqualification shall have effect as if the following provision were enacted therein: A person shall not be disqualified from being registered or from voting as a parliamentary or local government elector by reason that he is the town clerk or depute town clerk of any burgh or the assessor under the Valuation Acts in any burgh or county."—(Lord Lamington.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I accept that.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT PEEL

By the leave of the House I should like to move my next Amendment, not as it appears on the Paper, but in another form. It is merely drafting.

Amendment moved—

Page 33, after line 40, insert as a new paragraph: (11) in Subsection (5) of the Section of this Act relating to expenses of registration the expression the council whoso clerk the registration officer is' means 'the council appointing the registration officer.'"—(Viscount Peel)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL GREY

My next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 9, leave out from ("in") to ("and") in line 11, and insert ("two or more sheriffdoms, the sheriff of such one of those sheriffdoms as the Secretary for Scotland may appoint."—(Earl Grey.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT PEEL

May I, before the Amendment on the Paper in the name of Lord Balfour of Burleigh is moved, move the insertion of a new subsection referring to the constituency of Orkney and Shetland.

Amendment moved—

Page 34, after line 26, insert as a new subsection: (12) Notwithstanding the provision in subsection (1) of this section of this Act relating to polis to be held on one day at a General Election, the poll for any General Election for the constituency of Orkney and Shetland shall remain open for two consecutive days as heretofore."—(Viscount Peel.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Perhaps the noble Viscount will be good enough to explain the Amendment which he has proposed without notice.

VISCOUNT PEEL

It merely retains the existing law as to elections in Orkney and Shetland because of the difficulty of navigating between the islands.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

What affect will it have on the point that all elections must be on one day, which is one of the principles governing the Bill?

VISCOUNT PEEL

It will be an exception, and the only exception there is to the principle. It is impossible, I understand, to hold the election there on one day.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Impossible to hold the election there on one day! Perhaps the noble Viscount will explain the matter to us.

VISCOUNT PEEL

It is a physical impossibility. I do not know whether the noble Marquess has ever been there.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

No, I have never been there.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I have, and I can assure him of the impossibility of getting about these islands. This provision is in the Ballot Act, and the Amendment is merely carrying on the law which has been in existence for forty years.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LAMINGTON, on behalf of LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH, moved the insertion of a new subsection.

Amendment moved—

Page 35, after line 9, insert as new subsection: (15) Not withstanding anything in this Act it shall not in the year nineteen hundred and nineteen and subsequent years be necessary—

• "(a) As regards any burgh or any registration unit therein, if the town council of the burgh so resolve, to show or distinguish in any spring register the names of persons entitled to vote as local government electors, or
• "(b) As regards any county or any registration unit therein, if the county council of the county so resolve, to show or distinguish in any register other than the autumn register in those years in which county council elections fall to be held the names of persons entitled to vote as local government electors.

Provided that—

• "(i) a resolution under this section shall not have effect unless it is passed as respects the spring register in any year before the first day of January in that year, and as respects the autumn register in any year before the first day of July in that year.
• "(ii) for ail the purposes of the registration of local government electors in any burgh or county, or registration unit therein to which any such resolution applies the last preceding local government register shall remain in force until a new local government register comes into force.

in this subsection ('burgh') has the same meaning as in the Town Councils (Scotland) Act, 1900, and('county') means a county exclusive of any such burgh."—(Lord Lamington.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I accept that.

On Question. Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I understand that the Government will now adjourn.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I think it would meet the convenience of the House if we finish the Report stage and Third Reading to-morrow, and therefore I beg to give notice to move the suspension of Standing Order XXXIX. It is probable your Lordships will desire that this Bill should be taken first to-morrow, and therefore I give notice to move the suspension of Standing Order XXI, in respect of the Franchise Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

Does the noble Earl propose that the House should sit after dinner to-morrow? Is it proposed to take the Non-ferrous Metal Industry Bill to-morrow? I understand that there will be some discussion.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I believe that it will be more convenient for that Bill to be postponed until Wednesday. I am afraid that it will be necessary to sit after dinner to-morrow. I hope not, devoutly; but I am afraid we shall have to.

Further consideration of the Representation of the People Bill on Report adjourned till to-morrow.