Sitting of 27 June 1917

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Gas and Water Provisional Orders Bill,
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders Bill,
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

NEW WRITS.
For County of Monmouth (Southern Division), in the room of Major-General Sir Ivor John Caradoc Herbert, Baronet, C.B., C.M.G., now Baron Treowen, called up to the House of Peers.—[Captain Guest.]
For County of Dublin (South Dublin Division), in the room of William Francis Cotton, Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Boland.]

CENTRAL PRISONERS OF WAR COMMITTEE.
Copy presented of Report of the Joint Committee appointed by the Chairmen of Committees of the House of Lords and the House of Commons to inquire into the Organisation and Methods of the Central Prisoners of War Committee [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
FINANCE ACCOUNTS.
Copy presented of Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom for the year ended 31st March, 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 102.]
ARMY.
Copy presented of Memorandum on War Office Contracts [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TREATY SERIES (No. 8, 1917).
Copy presented of Treaty between the United Kingdom and Nicaragua for the regulation of the Turtle Fishing Industry in the Territorial Waters of Nicaragua as regards fishing vessels belonging to the Cayman Islanders. Signed at Guatemala, 6th May, 1916. Ratifications exchanged at Guatemala, 4th May, 1917 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ALLIED WAR AIMS (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 10, 1917).
Copy presented of Note from the Russian Provisional Government and the British Reply respecting the Allied War Aims [by Command]; to lie upon the Table."
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    ROYAL NAVAL AIR SERVICE.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state if an enemy submarine was attacked by a Royal Naval Air Service seaplane on 1st May last in the North Sea; if the attack was successful, and who was the pilot responsible; if on 14th June Zeppelin L43 was attacked by an officer of the Royal Naval Air Service; and, if so, was the attack successful, and who was the officer responsible?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): We do not think it desirable to state where or how attacks are made on enemy submarines and Zeppelins. But, of course, in the case of such attacks, the names of the personnel engaged are duly reported to the Admiralty and appropriate reward is made.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon.Gentleman in future adopt the policy of either

    355
    publishing all the names of these officers or none, and not making distinctions between some officers and others?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me a case.

    GREECE.

      EX-KING CONSTANTINE.
      Mr. BILLINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government has undertaken to pay a pension to King Constantine, late King of Greece; and, if so, what is the amount of that pension?
      Mr. GILBERTasked whether any annuity or payment has been made by the Greek Government to King Constantine on his abdication; and, if so, what the amount of the annuity or payment is, and also if the Treaty Powers are in any way responsible or have guaranteed such payments?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): I am not yet aware what arrangement the High Commissioner came to with Monsieur Zaimis in regard to King Constantine's future pension. Presumably it will be paid from Greek revenues.
      Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that the Foreign Office is not yet aware of the action taken in this matter?
      Mr. BALFOUR: I have told the hon. Gentleman that I am not yet aware of what arrangements were come to.
      Mr. KING: Why is it that the Press in this country get information of these events before the Foreign Office?
      The following question stood in the name of Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD:
      9. To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the late King of Greece received a pension from or guaranteed by the Allies or any of them; and, if that be so, whether the amount can be stated?
      Mr. R. MACDONALD: This question has already been answered.

      ACTION OF ALLIES.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that on 19th June M. Venizelos sent a telegram to the Press of the United
      356
      States disclosing that the guaranteeing powers prevented Greece from having a republican form of Government; whether the ties of blood between the British, Danish, German and Greek Royal families were in any or all these cases the grounds for this action of the guaranteeing powers; and whether it is the policy of the Allies, as also of the German Kaiser, to support the Greek Royal house against the Greek people?
      Mr. BALFOUR: The policy of the Guaranteeing Powers has been often stated, and the insinuations of the hon. Member have been often contradicted. There seems no reason to add anything to the answers already given.
      Mr. LYNCH: Would it not be well to associate the United States with all these acts of great importance?
      Mr. BALFOUR: How can I associate the United States with questions put to me?
      Mr. ROCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to the misunderstanding which exists as to the action of the Allies in Greece, he will, as soon as possible, lay Papers dealing with the actions taken by the Allies from the date of the landing of Allied troops in Salonika to the date of the removal of King Constantine?
      Mr. BALFOUR: The time has not arrived when the full correspondence on this subject can be laid before the House.

      SALONIKA EXPEDITION.
      Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now arrange for a full and frank discussion of Greece and the Salonika Expedition?
      Mr. BALFOUR: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, this is a question which can only be answered by the Leader of the House, but personally I do not think such a discussion would at present be in the public interest.

    ALBANIA.
    Mr. LEES SMITHasked whether His Majesty's Government have given any official recognition to the Italian protectorate over the Albanians?
    Mr. BALFOUR: The answer is in the negative. As regards the accuracy of the expression "Italian protectorate over the Albanians," I would refer the hon. Member to the recent answers given in the House.

    ALSACE-LORRAINE.
    Mr. L. SMITHasked whether it is a correct interpretation of the Allied note to President Wilson that Alsace and Lorraine are to be transferred to France without measures being taken to ascertain the wishes of the populations concerned?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I cannot undertake to expound the exact form in which the general principles laid down in the Allied note will be applied.
    Mr. SMITH: Are we to understand from that reply that the fate of these populations is to be determined without their wishes being ascertained?
    Mr. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I said I cannot undertake to expound the exact form in which the general principles laid down in the Allied Note will be applied. Obviously you cannot infer from that statement what the hon. Gentleman seems to desire.
    Mr. SMITH: But have these proposals been accepted by the Government of the United States or the new Government of Russia?
    Mr. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman wants to ask another question he had better put it on the Paper.

    DUCHESS OF SAXE-COBURG.
    Mr. GILBERTasked whether the annuity payable to the Duchess of Saxe-Coburg has been paid during the period of the War, and if the money has been remitted to Germany; and, if so, in what manner has it been sent?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for West Clare on the 5th instant. I am informed that the money is not remitted to Germany.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware
    358
    that the regimental paymaster at Perth refused to sanction the payment of £15 sent home from France by Lance-Corporal David Ross, No. 226,032, 10th Battalion Cameron Highlanders, for the benefit of his mother and uncle, saying that £3 was only admissible to be paid, and denying the relatives any explanation of the refusal to pay the balance; if so, will he say why soldiers are discouraged to remit home for the benefit of their relatives any savings they may have made from their wages and allowances?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Owing to clerical error the account showed only £3 available, and the paymaster gave the only explanation he could. The matter has since been put right, and the whole sum of £15 has been issued. There was no idea of discouraging remittances.
    Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the money was paid?
    Mr. FORSTER: As soon as it was discovered what amount was due to the man.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Sir COURTENAY WARNERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what is the policy of the Army Council in regard to the granting of remission of sentences to conscientious objectors who are rejected by the tribunal or who refuse to accept the conditions of work under the Brace Committee; and whether such policy has resulted in repeated trials by court-martial for what is practically persistence in disobedience to military commands?
      Mr. FORSTER: The policy of the Army Council in regard to such men has been to regard them as soldiers, and in consequence to accord them the clemency which is meted out to soldiers who have been guilty of offences against discipline. The scale of punishments laid down in paragraph 583 of the King's Regulations as suitable for offences committed by soldiers has been followed, and the sentences passed by courts-martial reduced accordingly. Twelve months' experience, however, has proved that the clemency has been invariably abused, and that as soon as such men are released from prison they immediately commit themselves again. It

      359
      has, therefore, been decided to make no more remissions in such cases during the continuance of hostilities, and the sentences of district courts-martial will be left undisturbed.
      Mr. KING: Does that mean that exceptional circumstances will not be taken into consideration, and that instead of judging each case on its merits there will be a rule excluding all of them from any remission of sentences?
      Mr. FORSTER: If there are any special circumstances I dare say they will be taken into account.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Does the policy of the Government now mean that the men who continue to disobey orders will serve successive sentences in prison?
      Mr. FORSTER: I do not think they will come out of prison.

      MEDICAL RE-EXAMINATION.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether his attention has been called to a recent meeting of the Mitcham Tribunal, at which a man passed for service asked permission to go before a special medical board; whether he is aware that this man is blind in one eye, half-blind in the other, and stone deaf, and had to be led into the room by a clerk; whether he proposes making any investigation into this case; (2) whether his attention has been called to a Mitcham chemist, the owner of a one-man business, who applied before the local tribunal for permission to go before a special medical board; whether he is aware that this man, formerly rejected for military service, has now been passed for general service, and that although he only weighs 91 lbs. he will be expected to carry a kit weighing 90 lbs. exclusive of his rifle; whether he has seen that Dr. Love, a member of the tribunal, described the classification as absurd; whether he proposes taking any action in the matter; (3) whether he will make investigation into the case of Charles Walker Smillie, of 7, Chipping-ham-place, Attercliffe, Sheffield, who was recently medically examined and passed for general service in the Army; whether he is aware that this man is 4 ft. 10 ins. in height and weighs about six stone, and that he will be expected to carry a kit heavier than himself; and whether, in the circumstances, he will cause a further
      360
      medical examination to be made, either with a view to the discharge of this man from the Army or to the placing of him in a lower category?
      Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (l) if he is aware that Harold Vincent Lawton, 77, St. Romans Road, South-sea, passed into Portsmouth Dockyard as engineer apprentice August, 1906, and was invalided out the same year with tubercle of the hip, that he has not been able to work for six and a half years, but has recently done sedentary work as a bank clerk, that he presented himself under the Derby scheme, was rejected for tubercle of the hip and given a blue form, and that H. V. Lawton was passed second general service in June, 1917; if he will inquire into this case and have, the matter put right; if A. C.I. 471, which suggests that any man who has been treated for tuberculosis at any time is to be rejected, has been abrogated; (2) if he is aware that Messrs. Leethem, corset makers, Portsmouth, who employ over 1,000 women hands, were asked in November last by the substitution officer, recruiting depot, if they would release a skilled pattern cutter, Robinson, a general service man, for the 6th Hants, if another of their cutters who had joined up but had become C 2 was returned to them; that Messrs. Leethem agreed in good faith, but now this substitute has been called up; that Messrs. Leethem have an excellent war record, and that they give their workers an allowance while in the Service and have promised to reinstate them after the War, but all this will be impossible if their factories have to shut down; and if he will inquire into the matter and allow Messrs. Leethem to retain all but general service skilled pattern cutters?
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will make inquiry into the methods of the medical board at St. Andrew's School. Stockport, where men are being summoned for a particular date for re-examination, kept waiting the whole day, and then sent away without examination and told to come come again, when a similar experience awaits them; and, in view of the hardship, inconvenience, and financial loss inflicted upon the men by this practice, will he take steps to effect an alteration?
      Mr. FORSTER: I will answer at the same time Nos. 22, 23, 27, 28, and 31. In

      361
      each of these cases it is necessary to obtain further particulars, and my hon. Friends shall be informed of the result as soon as possible.
      Mr. T. WILSONasked whether, under the provisions of the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act, a man who has been medically rejected, who attained the age of forty-one in April last, who has been substituted for a man who has been released for the Army, and who is working in an excepted occupation, is called up for medical re-examination?
      Mr. FORSTER: A man who was excepted from the Military Service Acts, 1916, and attained the age of forty-one within thirty days after the 5th April, 1917, the date on which the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act, 1917, was passed, cannot be made liable for military service under the latter Act. If a notice requiring him to present himself for medical re-examination is sent to him, he should return it to the recruiting officer with a statement as to his age, which may be fortified by his birth certificate.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that he is excepted from this Act if he attains the age of forty-one before the expiration of the thirty days after the notice is served on him, and that therefore the answer is inaccurate?
      Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir. The answer may be incomplete.
      Mr. PRINGLE: It is inaccurate.

      LOCAL TRIBUNALS (MILITARY REPRESENTATIVES).
      Sir H. CRAIKasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he has now completed his inquiries into the question of persons of military age and fitness serving as military representatives before tribunals; and whether he can state the result of these inquiries?
      Mr. FORSTER: Out of ninety-four appeal military representatives eleven of military age have been found fit for general service. Instructions have been issued that arrangements must be made for these eleven officers to be relieved of their recruiting duties and to rejoin their units for duty.
      Mr. FABER: Will these gentlemen go before the tribunal in the ordinary way like anybody else?
      Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir. They are officers in the Army.

      FIELD PUNISHMENT NO. 1.
      Sir W. BYLESasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he is aware that Private Ernest Richard Bowyer, No. 290739, l/7th Battalion Welsh Regiment, belonging to North Salford, but now stationed at Marton Hall, Yorkshire, has lately been punished by being confined to barracks without pay for one month and given field punishment No. 1. which means being handcuffed and tied to a tree for two hours each day; whether he is aware that this young soldier is only sixteen, years of age and three months and has served a year with the Colours, and that his offence was that he overstayed his first leave; and whether he will take steps to prevent punishments of these kinds to lads of sixteen years of age?
      Mr. FORSTER: It is necessary to call for a report in this case, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

      INTERNED OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
      Sir FRANCIS BLAKEasked whether interned officers are being promoted in the regular course in accordance with a promise to that effect given by the Under-Secretary of 'State for War on 10th February, 1915; and, if not, will he give the reason why this undertaking has not been carried out?
      Mr. FORSTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on the 13th March to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York.

      REVIEW OF EXCEPTIONS.
      Sir DANIEL GODDARDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will give instructions to delay proceedings under the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act, 1917, pending the decision of the Committee to be appointed?
      Mr. FORSTER: I regret that it is not possible to adopt my right hon. Friend's suggestion.

      YOUNG RECRUITS (TRAINING).
      Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked (1) whether any Regulation has been issued limiting the hours of work or training for recruits between the ages of eighteen and nineteen; and, if so, the nature of the Regulation; (2) whether youths of eighteen are now trained in special units; and what arrangements are made for their educa-

      363
      tion, training, feeding, and accommodation which differ from those made for older soldiers?
      Mr. FORSTER: I will answer at the same time No. 36. Arrangements have been made for recruits enlisted under the age of eighteen years and eight months to be posted to battalions organised for their reception, and to which recruits over the age of eighteen years and eight months are not posted. A special training syllabus has been drawn up in order that there should be no risk of overstrain, and attention is paid to education and games. Instructions have been issued for special attention to be paid to ensure that the accommodation provided and the messing arrangements are satisfactory, and that proper provision is made for rest and recreation. An additional allowance of bread is given to all recruits under the age of nineteen.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked when a youth who has been called up at the age of eighteen becomes entitled to his first leave; and at what intervals he can obtain leave subsequently?
      Mr. FORSTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East on the 20th instant.

      ROYAL GARRISON ARTILLERY (HAVRE).
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that the men in the Royal Garrison Artillery at Havre are not receiving the Regulation food rations, as recently stated by the War Office, and that they are not receiving more than half the amount laid down in the Regulations; and if inquiry will be made into this matter?
      Mr. FORSTER: I have no information which bears out the hon. Member's suggestion. I am making inquiries, and if the hon. Member will let me have any details in his possession I shall be obliged.

      MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.
      Sir B. FALLEasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that Members of the other House are not exempted from military service by reason of serving or sitting in that House; and if Members of this House are exempted, by what means, or for what reasons, such exemption is or can be obtained?
      Mr. FORSTER: A Member of Parliament sitting in either House is not, as such, exempted from liability to be called up for military service. An Instruction was, however, issued in August last for the general guidance of recruiting officers that a Member of Parliament who, having been examined by a medical board, is found not fit for general service, is not to be called up.
      Sir B. FALLE: Will these Members be re-examined?
      Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir. I see no reason why they should not.

    ALDBROUGH CAMP (VISITORS).
    Mr. BENTHAMasked the Undersecretary of State for War if he is aware that the police have ordered the licensed victuallers and others not to supply food or drink to visitors at Aldbrough, East Yorks; and if he will say if this order was issued in consequence of any instructions or representations of the Army Council?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): My hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I have made inquiry and am informed that the police have not issued any orders to the effect indicated in the Question.

    AIR SERVICES.

      BRITISH TROOPS IN MESOPOTAMIA.
      Mr. BILLINGasked whether he has received any complaint, official or otherwise, regarding the type of machine supplied to the air pilots on service with the British troops in Mesopotamia?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the AIR BOARD (Major Baird): I am not aware of the receipt of any communication on this matter which could with correctness be described as a complaint. The Commander-in-Chief in Mesopotamia has stated that he would like certain additions to the aeronautical equipment of his forces and his wishes in this respect are being met.
      Mr. BILLING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Germans have discovered our ruse de guerre and know that we are

      365
      making it a dumping ground for the worst of our machines and they are making arrangements accordingly?
      Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: Will the Government give a day for the discussion of the Mesopotamia scandal?

      REPRISALS.
      Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to give an early date for a Debate on our Air Services, policies, and administrations, in order to enable the Members of this House to express the views of their constituents on the question of reprisals?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The answer is in the negative.
      Mr. BILLING: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the War Cabinet, the Government or this House of Commons are responsible to the people for the policy and for the conduct of this War?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The War Cabinet is responsible to this House, and between us we are responsible to the people.
      Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman give this House an opportunity of expressing its views or at least the views of the country?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have answered questions of this kind, I think, about once a day for ten days, and I have stated more than once that if I find there is any general desire to discuss the subject an opportunity will be given.
      Colonel C. LOWTHER: May I ask if the bombing of our cities and the murder of our women and children and other acts against civilised warfare are to go on for ever unpunished?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: No, not if we are able to stop them.
      Mr. P. A. HARRIS: Is it not a fact that yesterday Lord Cowdray made a full and frank statement to many Members of this House who required explanation and that he explained why that information had to be confidential?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am well aware of the meeting yesterday, and I think that it was very desirable.
      Colonel C. LOWTHERasked the Prime Minister whether his refusal to entertain any organised system of re-
      366
      prisals is due to the fact of their impracticability or to the Government's antipathy to methods which they consider barbarous?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I can only refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to him yesterday.
      Colonel LOWTHER: In spite of the answer, will the Government consider one form of reprisals which admits of no delay, and that is the ignition of German forests? Has my right hon. Friend's attention been called to an admirable pamphlet by Professor Beale, in which he shows that a series of aeroplanes armed with special incendiary devices could very easily set on fire the Black Forest and other very valuable forest land?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I need not tell my hon. and gallant Friend that this is not the first time we have heard of that suggestion.

      PILOTS.
      Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether, as a matter of policy, he will instruct naval and military authorities to release for service in the Royal Flying Corps or Royal Naval Air Service every man under twenty-five years of age who is peculiarly fitted for, and desirous of, becoming a pilot or, alternatively, if he will instruct the naval and military authorities to encourage suitable volunteers for the Air Service by at least registering their names?
      Major BAIRD: I have been asked to answer this question. The provision of pilots in numbers sufficient for manning the increasing supply of aircraft is a question for the naval and military authorities, who are responsible for the recruitment and training of personnel. There is at present no difficulty in obtaining suitable volunteers for the Air Services and there is no lack of encouragement.
      Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that we have all the pilots we require, and that there is no desire for adding to their numbers?
      Major BAIRD: The hon. Member had better understand exactly what the answer says.
      Mr. BILLING: May I ask this question of the Prime Minister? It is a question of policy and not a question of detail for little understrappers to answer.

    WAR PRISONERS' CAMP (BROCTON).
    Sir WALTER ESSEXasked whether an interned German doctor named Staab has been or is to be sent to the war prisoners' camp at Brocton, Staffordshire; whether the British medical officers there have been requested to add him to their staff and to accord to him the entry to and the conveniences of their mess; and whether such mess room is outside the confines of the camp?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): I am informed that no German doctor has been or is to be sent to the prisoners of war camp at Brocton.

    CENSORSHIP (RUSSIAN NEWSPAPERS).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked if a censorship is exercised upon the entry into this country of the Russian Socialist newspapers; and, if not, will he explain why no Russian Socialist newspapers have reached English subscribers during the last few months?
    Mr. FORSTER: In regard to the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 30th April to my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset. I have no information as to the last part of the question, but the probable explanation is that none have been sent.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      DAIRY STOCK.
      Mr. CLANCYasked whether, in view of the shortage of foods for dairy stock in the neighbourhood of Dublin, he will consider at once the advisability of adopting the suggestion of the county Dublin food production advisory committee that the military authorities should not now purchase or commandeer any hay within a radius of 10 miles of the Irish metropolis, and will revise the prices of hay commandeered in the light of the shortage referred to, and of the other considerations mentioned in the recommendations of the committee?
      Mr. FORSTERI have not seen a copy of the recommendations referred to in the last part of the question, but the question
      368
      is under consideration by the Irish (Forage) Advisory Committee and the Central Forage Committee.

      RICHMOND PARK (LAND CULTIVATION).
      Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the First Commisiosner of Works whether he has obtained any report as to the condition of the land in Richmond Park recently broken up and sown down in oats; whether the operations connected with the cultivation of this plot of land have been carried out successfully; and whether he can state the acreage under oats and the expense incurred in cultivating and fencing the land?
      The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): I receive weekly reports on this subject. The operations of cultivation have been carried out successfully. Seventy-five acres have been placed under oats. The estimated cost is £696, including £424 for cultivation, £192 for manures, labour and horses, and £80 for threshing. The cost of fencing was £343.
      Mr. MILLAR: Has the right hon. Gentleman visited the park himself, and can he vouch for the fact that the operations have been carried out successfully?
      Sir A. MOND: I visited the plot myself. I have a sample of the oats in a box here, and I am very pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that the operations have proved very successful.
      Mr. G. FABER: What was the total acreage broken up—I understand that 75 acres were put down to oats?
      Sir A. MOND: The total acreage is 75.
      Mr. MILLAR: Is it not the case that there are large portions of the plot on which there is nothing growing at all?
      Sir A. MOND: No, Sir. I think there is a small portion which, owing to the dry weather, has not been so successful as we-might wish.
      Mr. DIXON: What amount of oats per acre is it estimated to get?
      Sir A. MOND: I would sooner not answer that question until we have had the oats raised.

      PROFITEERING.
      Mr. FINNEYasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been

      369
      called to resolutions from meetings of representatives of the organised miners of North Staffordshire, the Midland Miners' Federation, and from a special conference of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, protesting against the continued increase and high cost of living, and calling upon the Government to take the necessary steps to abolish profiteering, to take over the full control of the necessaries of life, and to direct the distribution of the same, at reasonable prices, to the people; and whether he can indicate that the Government intend to deal with these matters on the lines suggested at an early date?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As I have stated in answer to previous questions, the Government are doing their best to deal effectively with this matter.

      AUSTRALIAN AND CANADIAN WHEAT.
      Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Australian Government have commandeered all the Australian wheat for the use of the Empire, and that there is an estimated exportable surplus of 80,000,000 bushels of wheat in Canada, he can say whether the Canadian Government has been asked if they will act in the same way as Australia; and, if not, will lie make this request to the Canadian Government?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The question of wheat supply from Canada has been discussed with the Canadian Government, but it is not proposed to adopt the suggestion made by the hon. Member. In view of the geographical differences between Canada and Australia the same methods of control are not equally suitable in the two countries.

      FRUIT PRESERVATION (SUGAR SUPPLY).
      Mr. BUTLER LLOYDasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the anxiety in the country districts as to whether sufficient sugar will be forthcoming for the preservation of fruit; if he realises that sugar for this purpose is needed now and in the immediate future, and that if it is not provided large quantities of most useful food will be lost to the country; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): The Royal Commission on the Sugar Supply is distributing sugar for preserving fruit to about 500,000 applicants, mostly in rural districts, who are growers of their own fruit. This sugar is now being delivered to the applicants as rapidly as possible.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in many districts no sugar has arrived, and that if it does not arrive next week it will be no use for strawberries?
      Mr. DEVLIN: Will he say when a representative of Ireland will be appointed?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will inquire.
      Sir C. WARNER: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us on what principle this distribution has been made, because I have a question down asking on what principle it is made, and, why certain large growers are given nothing and their applications taken no notice of?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not think I can anticipate the answer to that question which I have got.
      Mr. SCANLAN: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire from the War Cabinet, or from someone occupying a leading position in the Government, how it is that in regard to the distribution of sugar in Ireland no arrangement satisfactory to the needs of Ireland has been made by the Government?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Member must ask the Food Controller.
      Sir S. COLLINS: Is there the same shortage for making beer?
      Mr. DEVLIN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on fifteen different occasions I was promised that a representative of Ireland would be appointed in connection with the distribution of sugar and the appointment is not made yet?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot answer these supplementary questions, which are for the Food Controller. I am only answering in the absence of a representative of that Department.
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: When are we going to get a representative of the Food Controller in this House?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That question should be addressed to the Prima Minister.

    WAR BONUSES (IRELAND).
    Mr. CLANCYasked whether the employés in the remount depot at Lusk, county of Dublin, have received no war bonus addition to their wages although the employés in every other military depot in Ireland have been otherwise treated; and, if so, will he state the reason and say whether the employés at Lusk will now be placed on the same footing in respect of remuneration for their work as the same class of workers in similar depots elsewhere?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am inquiring into this matter.

    HORSES (CREWE AUCTION SALE).
    Captain WRIGHTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that a considerable number of horses were sent to the Crewe auction sale last Friday, 22nd June, which, owing to the recent Order prohibiting, except under licence, the sale of farm horses, could not be sold and had to be returned home; and whether, in the future event of Orders imposing similar restrictions being made, he will take steps to ensure a longer notice of their coming into operation, so that the loss to owners ignorant of the restrictions and unnecessary traffic on the railways may be avoided?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part, I would point out that as long a notice as possible of the fact that an Order has been made is always given to the public, but to give notice of the intention of making an Order would, to some extent, stultify its effect.
    Captain WRIGHT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that entrances for the sale closed on the Monday and the order was made on the Saturday or the Friday before?
    Mr. PROTHERO: I was not aware of that circumstance and I very much regret the inconvenience caused, but I am afraid that in the circumstances it was inevitable.

    "KEW BULLETIN."
    Sir W. BYLESasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, on
    372
    the plea of economy, the Government have suspended the publication of the "Kew Bulletin," which has been published for thirty years and has proved of service to those engaged in science, cultivation, and commerce connected with plant and agricultural resources of the over-seas dominions; and, if so, will he say what will be the total amount saved by this suspension of publication?
    Mr. PROTHERO: In reply I beg leave to refer my hon. Friend to the answer which the Parliamentary Secretary made to a question by the hon. Member for Devizes on the 18th inst. The matter is now-being reconsidered by the Publications Committee at the request of the Board. I hope it may prove possible to resume publication.

    ENEMY AIR RAIDS.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether the Government are prepared to reconsider their decision with regard to the compensation of victims of air raids; if so, when it is proposed to make a definite statement in the House; and whether, under these circumstances, to prevent confusion and ensure equity, the Government will consider the advisability of abolishing the present system of Government insurance?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: With regard to the first two parts of the question, I can add nothing to the replies I gave on the 19th and 22nd instant to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. BILLING: Might I ask the Leader of the House if he will make a definite and final statement as to whether it is or is not permissible for individuals occupying official positions to give information of approaching raids, because it is either necessary or unnecessary? [HON. MEMBERS: "That does not arise!"] What action does the Prime Minister propose to take with reference to the Lord Mayor's statement of last night?
    The HON. MEMBERasked whether the Government has yet decided to adopt a policy of air-raid warning by day; if it is proposed to adopt a policy of air-raid warning by night; and, if so, if a standardised system of warning will be instituted throughout the country, or whether each local authority will be permitted to make its own arrangements?
    Sir G. CAVE: The Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief established some time ago a system of night warnings which covers the whole country, and has worked well, and he has now established a system of day warnings in the area which is exposed to attack by hostile aeroplanes. In both cases the warnings are conveyed to the proper military and police authorities and to certain factories and institutions where special precautionary measures are required in the public interest; no public warning is given by the military authorities. In certain areas public warnings are prohibited by military order, and the Government has now decided that no public warning should be given in London, but elsewhere local authorities are allowed to give such warning if they think it desirable.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to receive a deputation from the City in this connection as to whether warning should or should not be given?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have already received a deputation, which included the Lord Mayor of the City of London.

    AMERICA (AEROPLANES).
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether we have yet dispatched to the United States Government aeroplanes of our latest design for their guidance and information; and, if so, when these were dispatched or, if it is not proposed to assist the American Government in this matter, will he state the reason why?
    Major BAIRD: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on this matter on the 24th of May.
    Mr. BILLING: This question is addressed to the Prime Minister, and I must ask the Prime Minister to reply [Interruption.] On a point of Order. This question is purely on a point of policy—whether or not we should aid our American Allies in the construction of aeroplanes—and it is not for an Under-Secretary to answer at all.
    Sir S. ROBERTS: On a point of Order. I should like to ask your ruling whether
    374
    Ministers are obliged to answer Members who use offensive expressions towards them?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is not the way, of course, to get an answer.

    CONSCRIPTION OF WEALTH.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Prime Minister whether he has received a copy of a resolution unanimously adopted by the Industrial Triple Alliance, representing the miners, the railwaymen, and transport workers of the country, urging that conscription of wealth should have preceded conscription of human life, and calling on the Government for the immediate preparation of a register of wealth and property in order to prepare for real equality of sacrifice; and what steps the Government propose to take in this matter?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Prime Minister has received a copy of the resolution referred to. I do not think anything would be gained by adopting the suggestion in the question.
    Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman has made himself acquainted with the composition of this Conference, and is he aware that all the delegates were genuine bonâ fide working-class delegates, and not inflated delegates such as met at Leeds?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I know that this question is very seriously regarded by the working classes, but it is not a subject which can be discussed by question and answer.
    Mr. KING: Is it seriously regarded by the Government?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand that the statement made by the hon. Member for West Derby in the Liverpool by-election that 10 per cent, of the wealth of the country would be confiscated was not made with the authority of the Government?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware of the statement. The Government have not made such a statement; but I have stated myself, and the Prime Minister has also stated, that as long as money exists in the country we will take it for the War in one way or another.

    MINISTRY OF COMMERCE.
    Sir F. LOWEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the trade questions which are likely to arise in the near future and of the unanimous desire which has frequently been expressed by the chambers of commerce in this country, he will consider the desirability of separating the functions now exercised by the Board of Trade in this direction from its other functions and establishing a new Department, to be known as a ministry of commerce, to deal with all commercial questions?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government are not as at present advised prepared to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend.
    Sir F. LOWE: Would the Prime Minister be prepared to receive a deputation on the subject in order that they may lay their views before him?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no doubt that if he had time he would. I am sure my hon. Friend agrees with me that this is not a question which arises now during the War. It is one to be dealt with after the War.
    Sir F. LOWE: Are there not commercial questions which will have to be settled immediately after the War?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly there are, but they cannot all be dealt with at once.

    MESOPOTAMIA EXPEDITION.

      ROYAL COMMISSION (REPORT).
      Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Prime Minister if he intends to give a day for discussion of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Mesopotamian expedition?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I should be glad if my hon. Friend would put down the question again next week after the House has had time to study the Report.
      Mr. DEVLIN: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to continue Lord Hardinge in the position he now occupies?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer which I have given replies to that also. I would rather not make any statement on the matter until the House has had a little more time to consider the Report.
      Mr. DEVLIN: What will be done with Lord Hardinge's Report in connection with the recent troubles in Ireland?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I had hoped to avoid saying anything about this at all to-day, but it is obvious to the House that the Government could not allow a Report of this kind to reach them without immediately taking steps to see what action should be taken.
      Mr. DEVLIN: Is the principle of the Government in appointing these Commissioners that of setting a thief to catch a thief?
      Sir J. JARDINE: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the cases of the officials censured in the Report during the interval or not?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already said that it must be obvious that it is the duty of the Government to take immediate action in regard to those who are specially accused of culpability in the matter.
      Mr. KING: Is Lord Hardinge still in a position of great authority and eminence at the Foreign Office?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: These questions assume that Lord Hardinge has been guilty. I do not wish to make any such assumption at present.
      Mr. KING: Is not the right hon. Gentleman of opinion that, pending a final judgment of the House, the Government—
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

    MINISTERS (PUBLIC DIRECTORSHIPS).
    Mr. P. A. HARRISasked the Prime Minister whether the rule that members of His Majesty's Government shall not hold directorships in public limited companies is still in force?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the affirmative.
    Mr. WATT: Does the same rule hold good in the case of highly-placed officials?
    Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that Members can continue to vote public money into their own pockets so long as-they can put M.P. after their names?

    RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE.
    Colonel Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister when the Industrial Sub-Committee of the

    377
    Reconstruction Committee on Women's Employment and also the Agricultural Sub-Committee of the same Committee last held a sitting?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As my Noble Friend is aware, being himself a member of the Sub-Committee, the chairman (the right hon. Member for Walthamstow) found it necessary to resign, and there has been considerable though unavoidable delay in appointing a successor. This, however, has not meant that there has been a suspension of the work of the Committee.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Prime Minister what Sub-Committees of the Reconstruction Committee have been appointed, and the names of the members of the Committee and its Sub-Committees?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As already stated by the late Prime Minister in answer to a question addressed to him on 10th July, 1916, it is not considered desirable to announce the names of members of the Sub-Committees appointed by the Reconstruction Committee. The names of the members of the Reconstruction Committee have been published. I will send the hon. Member a list of the names for his information.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the names of the Sub-Committee, not the names of the members?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir. The reason which induced the late Government not to publish the names of these Sub-Committees still applies.
    Mr. WHYTE: Will the Government undertake that in appointing these Sub-Committees the interests of Scotland will be better represented than they are on the Reconstruction Committee itself?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not aware that Scottish interests were not properly represented on the Reconstruction Committee, but I shall look into that, and also into the membership of the Sub-Committees.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no member of the Reconstruction Committee has any acquaintance with or knowledge of local government in Scotland?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The chairman of the Committee is a Scotsman, which will go some way to show that Scotland is not unrepresented.
    Mr. GULLAND: Who is the chairman to whom the right hon. Gentleman refers?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am afraid I was under a misapprehension as to this Committee. The Committee I had in mind was the one presided over by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, which is not the Reconstruction Committee, but which is one of the most important Committees.

    TRADE WITH ALLIES.
    Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether any steps of a constructive nature for the encouragement of trade in conjunction with our Allies have yet been taken by His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the affirmative, but it is not desirable in the public interest to make a detailed announcement on the subject.

    SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (LAND SETTLEMENT).
    Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister what steps have already been taken to provide houses and land and the loan of the necessary capital for those of the sailors and soldiers who have already returned from the front incapacitated for further service, and who are desirous of becoming permanently settled on the land in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Steps are being taken to provide land and accommodation for ex-soldiers and sailors under the Small Holdings Colonies Act of last Session. The facilities are not intended primarily for incapacitated soldiers, although some of these will be taken in under the scheme where possible. A statement of the progress made under the Act was given by me on 27th March. Agricultural training for wounded soldiers and sailors is available either at Wye Agricultural College in Kent or through arrangements with individual farmers of standing. These training facilities, which are under the control of the Board of Agriculture and the local pensions committees, provide for the upkeep of a man's dependants during his period of training, for the payment of the fees of the training, and also for pocket-money for the man. No provision exists for the loan of capital for setting up ex-soldiers and sailors as farmers.
    Major HUNT: I do not quite understand the reply. Have any houses and lands been provided for our soldiers who want to go on the land in this country?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If my hon. and gallant Friend will read the answer, he will see that that is dealt with.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact that the Colonies Act only provides small holdings for 300 families and that we have 5,000,000 soldiers?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That, of course, only touches the fringe of the question. There is another question to which I shall give an answer later on which deals with another aspect of the matter.
    Colonel C. LOWTHER: Is there any national organisation for providing work for our soldiers and sailors who find themselves destitute and have given up their avocations?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean at the end of the War?
    Colonel C. LOWTHER: Yes.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is one of the subjects with which the Reconstruction Committee is dealing now.
    Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether the Imperial Government have yet agreed with the Governments of the Oversea Empire as to the settlement and provision of land and houses and the loan, of the necessary capital for those of our sailors and soldiers who are anxious to settle on land for agricultural occupation after the War in our Oversea Empire?
    The SECRETARY Of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Long): It is obviously impossible to take action in the matter until the Report of the Committee now sitting has been received and considered.
    Major HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this Committee is likely to report, as this matter is very urgent, and are not the Dominions waiting for a lead from the Mother Country?
    Mr. LONG: I cannot say when the Committee will report as I am not a member of the Committee. The Dominions are all represented on the Committee, and are perfectly well aware of what is going on through their representatives.
    Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether £2,000,000 have already been voted for buying land and providing houses and small holdings for sailors and soldiers who have served abroad in this War; and, if so, whether he can say why applicants are not coming forward in the numbers anticipated?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: £2,000,000 was the sum mentioned in paragraph 101 of the Final Report of the Departmental Committee (Cd. 8,182), but no definite sum has been voted by Parliament for this purpose. Two estates have already been acquired by the Board on long lease for use as experimental land settlement colonies for discharged sailors and soldiers, and the acquisition of two other estates is contemplated one of which will be in Wales. These undertakings are being financed by the Treasury as and when required. Application for holdings cannot be usefully made or considered until the men are actually discharged from the Forces, but a satisfactory number of applications has been received from men who have already been discharged and are fit for work on the land, and many inquiries have been received from men who are still serving, but are not likely at present, in view of the uncertainty as to their future to make formal applications. No considerable number of applications, however, can be expected until the end of the War.
    Mr. LOUGH: Under what law does the Treasury spend money for that purpose?
    Mr. W. THORNE: Common-sense law.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes. Without notice I cannot say exactly under what power it is done, but I have no doubt whatever that we have the power.

    ALLIES' COMMERCIAL TREATIES.
    Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether any of our Allies have denounced or have intimated their intention of denouncing all existing commercial treaties so as to be free to make new treaties of commerce after the War; and whether His Majesty's Government wilt denounce all existing commercial treaties for the same purpose?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Italian Government have denounced, with two exceptions, all their commercial treaties by which Italian tariff rates of duty are fixed.

    381
    The French Government have intimated their intention to denounce all their commercial treaties, and the subject is now being considered by His Majesty's Government.

    FARMERS AND TRADESMEN (RETURN TO BUSINESS AFTER WAR).
    Sir J. SPEARasked the Prime Minister if farmers and tradesmen who have joined the Army for the War will be free immediately on the conclusion of peace to return to their business?
    Mr. FORSTER: The release of men from the military forces at the end of the War will depend on the conditions obtaining at the time. It is obviously impossible now to forecast what these conditions will be, or what priority can be given to particular classes of individuals.
    Sir J. SPEAR: Will my hon. Friend see the importance of coming to a decision on the point as soon as possible?
    Mr. FORSTER: We are well aware of the very great importance of the question.

    DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES (WOMEN INVESTIGATORS).
    Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many additional women investigators into dependants' allowance claims have been appointed recently in Manchester?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: One additional woman investigator has been appointed and four Customs and Excise officers have been sent to assist with the work.
    Mr. SUTTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that they are still short of men in this Department, and people are having to wait before they can get their separation allowances?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I know there is great delay, and it was for that reason that we set up the Committee. I am making inquiries as to whether anything more can be done.

    EXCESS PROFITS TAX.
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn by the Associated
    382
    Chambers of Commerce to the accidental inequity brought about to excess tax payers by the device adopted, for the sake of convenience, by assessors of pitting one year's assessment levy against another instead of one' year's trading result against another; and how he proposes to rectify it?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It is the principle of the Excess Profits Duty, as laid down in Section 45 of the Finance Act, 1916, to provide a set-off in respect of deficiencies of profit against excess profits by reference to the rate of duty in force for the periods in which the excess and deficiency arise. The occasion for considering the point raised by my hon. Friend can only arise in connection with the assessment of the duty for the final accounting period.
    Sir F. LOWEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in computing the excess profits tax, he will recognise the claims of those who have sunk capital in developing industries to have the amount so expended by them added to their other capital expenditure in estimating their pre-war standard of profits?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: In computing capital for the purposes of Excess Profits Duty account is taken under existing law of proprietors' capital employed in the business. A return on unremunerative capital invested during the standard years is also provided for by Section 41 (4) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915.
    Sir F. LOWE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the case of the development of new industries, such as rubber companies, there has been hardship through the money they have expended not being taken into account as capital, but being treated as lost money?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No; as far as I recollect that is not the ground of their complaint. It is a very complicated subject, and could not be dealt with by way of question and answer.
    Sir F. LOWE: Will my right hon. Friend be prepared to deal with it on the Budget to some extent?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have received deputations. Of course, if any Amendment is moved on the subject it will be considered.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Excess Profits Tax is payable by clergy men and other persons in receipt of tithe in respect of the increase during the War in tithe rent charges?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Receipt of tithe does not constitute a business within the scope of the Excess Profits Duty.
    Mr. KING: In view of the large increase in tithe rent charges during the War and the necessity for getting more money, will some consideration be given to it when the Finance Bill is in Committee?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member has forgotten that the Excess Profits Duty does not apply unless the amount exceeds £200. I do not think there are many cases.

    NATIONAL UNION OF RAILWAYMEN.
    Mr. WALTER ROCHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the gentleman who attended the meeting of the National Union of Railwaymen held at the Memorial Hall, Farringdon Street on 17th June, in order to take notes of the proceedings for the Government, was instructed to do so by any individual Government Department or member of the Government, or whether he attended this meeting as part of his general routine duties?
    Sir G. CAVE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The police reporter in question attended this meeting as part of the ordinary routine under which the police keep themselves informed as to the proceedings at all public meetings of an important character. I understand that no special instructions to attend the meeting were given by any Government Department.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM LOSSES COMMISSION.
    Mr. MILLARasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any claims arising in respect of property acquired by the War Office, the Admiralty, the Ministry of Munitions, the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), or other Government Departments under the provisions of the
    384
    Defence of the Realm Acts and Regulations have been settled by the Treasury without being submitted to the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission; and what is the amount of the claims so settled?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; but to obtain the figures asked for in the second part would involve a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour by the Departments concerned.
    Mr. MILLAR: Was not this Losses Commission set up to protect the taxpayer in regard to the assessment of these claims, and will the right hon. Gentleman see that all claims are submitted to them in the first instance?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the hon. Member is mistaken in the object of that Commission. It was set up not to protect the Treasury, but to protect individuals against arbitrary action by the Treasury. Where agreement is reached by the Department and sanctioned by the Treasury the House may be assured that too much is not being taken.
    Mr. L. JONES: Why does not the Treasury leave the matter to the War Losses Commission, which was set up under Statute to deal with them?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. It was set up, I believe, to protect the public against arbitrary action by the Government and not with a view to protecting the Treasury.
    Mr. MILLAR: Was it not intended that where property was taken under the powers conferred on a Government Department under the Defence of the Realm Acts and Regulations all cases should be submitted in the first instance to this tribunal?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think not. The intention was that cases should be submitted to it when agreement was not-reached.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that a very much cheaper bargain has been made without the necessity of reference to the Losses Commission?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the fact that in some, cases these agreements give larger sums than the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure the question of my hon. Friend (Sir H. Craik) can be answered in the affirmative. There is often a saving made.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that there has been one instance where the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission thought that £20,000 was being overpaid?
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the fact that the case to which the hon. Member refers was never referred officially to the Losses Commission, but the opinion was expressed privately by one member of it?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Both hon. Members know much more about it than I do.

    MARYPORT BREWERY, CARLISLE.
    Mr. MILLARasked whether the claim made by the proprietors of the Maryport Brewery, Carlisle, in respect of the acquisition by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) of the brewery undertaking and premises and the licensed houses attached thereto under the statutory powers conferred upon the Board by the Defence of the Realm (Amendment) (No. 3) Act, 1915, was submitted to the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission and settled by them; what sum was fixed by the Commission as the purchase price; and what price was paid by the Board for the undertaking and premises and stock, etc.?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The claim referred to in the question has never been formally submitted to or adjudicated upon by the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission. The Central Control Board, with the sanction of the Treasury, have agreed to pay to the Maryport Brewery Company in respect of their whole undertaking £140,000, which sum includes compensation to the chairman and directors of the company and all the company's legal and valuers' charges. In addition to this, a payment is to be made in respect of brewing materials and wet stock, which are taken over at a valuation, but it is not in the public interest to state the amount of stock taken over or the prices paid.
    Mr. MILLAR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in this particular instance the Losses Commission did not think that this was a case which ought to have been investigated before any payment was made, and whether any opportunity was afforded to the Commission to deal with this case before the price was paid?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I discussed the matter personally with members of the Commission before I gave my reply.
    Mr. L. JONES: Is it not the case that pressure was put upon the Commission to induce them to agree to the sum settled upon by the Control Board and the Brewery Company, that that pressure was ineffective, and that thereupon the Treasury paid a large sum without the sanction of the Losses Commission?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I cannot agree with, the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. There was no pressure put upon the Losses Commission so far as I am aware.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: Are we to understand that the statement that this question was submitted to the Commission and they recommended £100,000, and that over their heads the Treasury paid £140,000, is all nonsense? It will come out in the public accounts.
    Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think that the hon. Member's account of the proceedings is quite a fair one.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Can the hon. Gentleman suggest how this matter came before the War Losses Commission at all if it was not within their purview.
    Sir H. CRAIK: It did not come before them.
    Mr. MILLAR: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I propose to raise this matter on the Munitions Vote which, I understand, is to be taken to-morrow.

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.

      BOUNDARY COMMISSIONERS' PROPOSALS.
      Colonel GRETTONasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board if he will cause a White Paper to be laid showing the draft proposals of the Boundary Commissioners so far formulated, and lay similar Papers from time to time as the Commissioners proceed, in order that hon. Members may have early information of proposals affecting the constituencies they represent, and not to have to wait the advertisements of local inquiries which appear in the newspaper press?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I am very unwilling to add to the labours of the Boundary Commissioners, which are already extremely onerous, but I will communicate to them the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend.

    POST OFFICE ENGINEERING BRANCH, IRELAND.
    Mr. NUGENTasked the Postmaster General if he is aware that the average monthly expenditure on materials in the Post Office Engineering Branch, Ireland, for the period August, 1914, to April, 1915, was £4,972, during which time the district was in charge of Irishmen, and for the periods May to December, 1915, January to December, 1916, and January to April, 1917, £1,387, £1,126, and £1,100, respectively, thus indicating that a much larger quantity of materials was used monthly in the first-mentioned period, and consequently a greater volume of work done each month than during the other periods referred to; can he say what justification there was for the transfer of the six additional men from England in April, 1915, at the transference cost of £442, and for their retention in Ireland at the present time, thereby adding unnecessary expense to the Irish Post Office Appropriation of over £1,900 annually; and will he undertake, in the event of these men having volunteered for active service, to have them released or, if not, re-transferred to England, where they could be more usefully and economically employed?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pearse): There is no correspondence between the net amounts spent on materials and the volume of work done, for the net amounts spent on materials are the costs of new materials less the value of recovered materials. In the first period referred to heavy charges were incurred for stores which were not made use of until later. The six officers sent from England were in substitution of Royal Engineers withdrawn for active service and their services in Ireland cannot be dispensed with.

    ACCIDENTS IN FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether, in reference to the decrease
    388
    of £12,000 in the Estimates for fees to surgeons, Class 2, Vote 4, Sub-head F, accidents in factories and workshops have recently been considerably reduced in number?
    Sir G. CAVE: No, Sir. The decrease of £12,000 in the Estimate represents the saving resulting from the reduction of the number of the certifying surgeons' reports on accidents, provided for in Section 8 of the Police, Factories (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of last Session.

    ACCIDENTS IN FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS.

      Darlington Board of Guardians.
      Colonel PENRY WILLIAMSasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to an order made by the Darlington magistrates on Joseph Burnicle, of Middlesbrough, for the support of his two grandchildren; if he can say what the amount of the order was and give separately the cost to the Darlington guardians of supporting the mother and each of the children; and will he say what are the ages, respectively, of the two children?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: My attention has been called to this case. I am informed that the order made by the magistrates was for the repayment of 15s. per week, being the amount of the relief given to his grandchildren, for whose relief he is legally liable, and the costs of the order; that the children are aged, respectively, eight years and three months; and that the amount of the relief is not in excess of the cost which would be incurred by the guardians if the children were maintained in the guardians' homes or sent to a certified school.
      Colonel WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a report of the meeting of the Darlington Board of Guardians on Monday, when the clerk stated that an order had been made on Joseph Burnicle for the support of his daughter-in-law and two children; whether he will make further inquiries; and whether he will call for the case paper or for the decision of the guardians upon this matter?
      Mr. FISHER: The Local Government Board have no power to go behind the order of the Court, but I am quite ready to make further inquiries.

      Board of Intermediate Education (Ireland).
      Mr. BOLANDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the action of the Board of Intermediate Education for Ireland in imposing a written examination for science, in opposition to the practice hitherto prevailing in Ireland, England, Scotland, and Wales, and against the representations made by educational bodies in Ireland, he will give facilities for the discussion of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Kerry?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot give a day for this Motion, which can, I understand, be discussed on the Irish Estimates.
      Mr. BOLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, under the Rules of the House, when these rules are made objection has to be taken within forty days, and the usual practice is that the matter should be taken after eleven o'clock some night when a Division can be taken? It is only to that extent that I was asking for facilities and not for a full day.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I will look into it from that point of view.

      Long Grove Asylum, Epsom (Death of Inmate).
      Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether Alfred Eungblut, a conscientious objector, until recently confined in Epsom Lunatic Asylum, has died; whether the cause of his death can be stated, where he died, and whether his relatives were informed in good time of the serious state of his health; and whether, in the case of this man, it was suggested on the 14th March last that his treatment was likely to result in his death?
      Sir G. CAVE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I have received a notice from the superintendent of the Long Grove Asylum, Epsom, which shows that this man died there on the 10th instant. The primary cause of death is given as "myocardial degeneration" and the secondary as "heart failure." His mother was present at his death. The hon. Member suggested in March last that the man's insanity was caused by his treatment by the military authorities, and I then invited him to submit evidence in support of this serious allegation to the
      390
      Army Council. I am not aware whether he has submitted any such evidence. No such suggestion has, so far as I know, been made by any other person.
      Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why in a case of serious illness the patient is not sent to a hospital or some other place where he can receive adequate treatment?
      Sir G. CAVE: This patient was sent to an asylum.

      Labour Conditions, Ireland (Wages).
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the discontent in Ireland caused by the payment of inadequate wages; if he will appoint a Committee to make inquiries into and report on the conditions of employment in Ireland; and if he will see that the wages paid will be raised to the level of that paid in Great Britain for similar work?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not feel that I can usefully add anything to the replies given to the questions on this subject put by the hon. Member on the 8th May and 8th June.
      Mr. LYNCH: Will the hon. Gentleman look into the question whether in offices under Government control Irish labourers really are paid less than their equivalent in England, and, if so, will he rectify it?
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Such questions should be addressed to the particular office to which it refers.

      Inebriate Reformatories.
      Mr. KINGasked whether, in reference to the decrease of £5,000 in the Estimates for contributions to inebriate reformatories, drunkenness has been so greatly diminished that the reduction in this Vote may be regarded as continuing.
      Sir G. CAVE: I believe that to some extent the reduction of the Vote is due to a diminution in drunkenness, but there are other causes, particularly the decision of the London County Council not to continue its arrangements for the reception of London cases. I do not think the amount is likely to increase substantially until there is an opportunity for the proposed legislation to amend the Inebriates Acts.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to deprive Enemy Peers and Princes of British Dignities and Titles." [Titles Deprivation Bill [Lords.]
    TITLES DEPRIVATION BILL [Lords].
    Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 70.]
    MILITARY SERVICE (REVIEW OF EXCEPTIONS) ACT, 1917.
    Ordered, "That Mr. Mooney be a Member of the Select Committee on Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act, 1917."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any change is contemplated in the arrangement of business for the remainder of this week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend informs me that he thinks it would be more convenient not to go beyond Clause 14 of the Representation of the People Bill this week. He hopes to get that Clause to-day, so that we have made a change in the business, and will take to-morrow the Munitions Vote, instead of on Friday. On Friday, if Clause 14 has not been reached, that will be the first order. If it is passed to-day, we shall take on Friday the Lords Amendments to the Courts (Emergency Powers) Bill, and the Trade Union (Amalgamation) Bill; and we shall also take the War Pensions (Transfer of Powers) Bill.
  Ordered, "That the Proceedings on the Representation of the People Bill, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

  CENTRAL PRISONERS OF WAR COMMITTEE.

    REPORT OF JOINT COMMITTEE.
    General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I wish to call attention to the fact that in the Press this morning there were extracts from the Report of the joint committee of this House and the other House on the organisation and methods of the Central Prisoners of War Committee. I understand that this Report was signed about ten days ago. I have made repeated attempts to secure a copy of this Report, but my attempts have failed. Although the Report is now in the public Press it is not now before Members of this House. I submit that this document ought not to have been handed to the Press until it was laid on the Table. I appeal to you to protect Members in this matter so that those Members who are particularly interested in this question should be able to get full copies of the Report and not have to rely only upon extracts that are given in the various newspapers. I may add that the Chan-
    420
    cellor of the Exchequer gave a special undertaking that there would be no difficulty about the printing or production of this Report, though it was an informal committee. I urged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make it an official committee so that Members of this House who were interested in this question might have an opportunity of placing their case before the committee. We were not allowed that, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave his undertaking to this House, at my request, that there would be no difficulty whatever about the production of the Report. I submit that the-House has not been fairly dealt with in the matter, and that a breach of privilege has arisen.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Who has committed the breach of privilege? Have I?
    Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: No, Sir. I submit that whoever sent this Report to the Press.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Report was ordered to be printed last week by the other House. Therefore it became a public document. I presume that it is in that way that the Press have obtained it. Of course, I quite agree that this House ought to have a copy of it at the same time. I do not know whether any explanation can be offered as to why that course was not taken in this instance.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This is the first I have heard of it. If my hon. Friend had' given me notice that he was about to raise it I should have been able to look into it. I can assure him that if he had asked that the Report should be laid on the Table I should have had that done at once.
    Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: I think it only fair in reply to that to say that I have applied to every official connected with; this matter—the Chairman of Committees, the Financial Secretary, and the hon. Member for the Central Division of Sheffield—I have been at them all repeatedly. I can also assure the right hon. Gentleman that I did not want to trouble him, as he had other important work, but I have mentioned the matter to all the officials1 connected in any way with this matter. The fact that the other Chamber has got it is a still further question of privilege. It should not be necessary for Members of this House to go to the other House to get information.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is what I have said. If it is laid in the other House it

    421
    certainly ought to be laid here, but I have not the smallest idea as to what the explanation is.
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I have been trying to explain that the blame rests with me. The House will do me the justice to acknowledge that I did not try to hide that. I have been endeavouring to rise every moment to explain. I did give an Order in what was a somewhat novel form of procedure a week ago, but I find I gave it in a wrong quarter, and I am afraid that it is only to-day that I have given it in the right quarter. The document will be printed with all speed. Such blame as arises, attaches to me. I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied with this explanation.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.—[Progress, 26th June.]
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Spring and Autumn Registers.)
    (1) Two registers of electors shall be prepared in every year, of which one (in this Act referred to as the spring register) shall be made for the qualifying period ending on the fifteenth day of January and the other (in this Act referred to as the autumn register) shall be made for the qualifying period ending on the fifteenth day of July.
    (2) The spring register shall come into force on the commencement of the fifteenth day of April and remain in force until the fifteenth day of October, and the autumn register shall come into force on the commencement of the fifteenth day of October and remain in force until the fifteenth day of April.
    (3) If for any reason the registration officer fails to compile a fresh spring or autumn register for his area or any part of his area, the register in force at the time when the fresh register should have come into force shall continue to operate as the register for the area in respect of which default has been made.
    Mr. A. SAMUELS: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the following new Sub-section:
    "(4) This Section shall not apply to university constituencies."
    422
    It is perfectly clear from reading the Bill that the provisions as to registration were never intended to apply in any way to the system of registration in any of the universities. Take the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Provision as to registration is made by a series of rules and Statutes in the two universities. The representation depends on an ancient charter granted by James I to the two universities in 1604. In Dublin the provisions depended originally on a charter granted nine years afterwards, also by James I., to the ancient Corporation of the Provost and Fellows and Scholars of Trinity College. Under the Reform Act of 1832 provision was made extending the electorate to all persons who took the degree of M.A. or any higher degree. Ever since these provisions have been regulated in the series of Statutes relating to Trinity College, Dublin, everyone of which is most carefully preserved in the Schedule of this Act. In London University provision is made by Statute for the register, and the members of convocation of the university are the electors. The provisions of these Statutes are not affected by this Bill. The case of the Scottish universities is also provided for by Statute, and the Scottish register is framed under Statute of 1868, modified by the amending Act of 1881. None of these Acts are affected by this Bill. All the university members have most carefully considered this matter. We understand that it would meet the wishes of His Majesty's Government, as being the best thing to do, to leave all these universities to their old systems, which will not cause any confusion. They are provided for by a series of different Statutes, and they will have no difficulty whatsoever in admitting to the register different gentlemen or ladies who may take degrees, and accordingly become qualified under this Act. This Amendment will also have to be extended through the whole series of Clauses down to 14, which would be introduced in a new form.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): There is no difference between my hon. Friend and the Government as to what is intended. We do not intend this Clause to apply to universities, nor do we intend the other Clauses in this part of the Bill to apply to universities. That being so, it is better not to insert these words in all these Clauses, but we will

    423
    undertake to bring in a new Clause that will cover the whole of Part II. With this explanation I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied.
    Mr. SAMUELS: Certainly. I desire to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Registration Officers and Areas.)
    (1) Each Parliamentary borough and each Parliamentary county shall be a registration area, and there shall be a registration officer for each registration area.
    4.0 P.M.
    (2) Where the registration area is a Parliamentary county and is coterminous with, or wholly contained in, one administrative county, the clerk of the county council, and where the registration area is a Parliamentary borough and is coterminous with, or wholly contained in, one municipal borough, the town clerk of the borough shall be the registration officer for the area.
    In any other case such clerk of the county council, or town clerk, shall be registration officer for the area as the Local Government Board may by Order direct, subject to any conditions which may be made by the Order as to the appointment of deputies for any part of the area.
    (3) Any of the duties and powers of the registration officer may be performed and exercised by any deputy for the time being approved by the Local Government Board.
    The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment on the Paper is out of place; it ought to come at the end of the Clause, instead of at the beginning.
    Sir C. SEELY: With regard to the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool and three other Members, may I ask whether it will be considered by the right hon. Gentleman?
    The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment, in the name of four hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Liverpool, provides that the town clerk, unless he is the registration officer, "shall be the deputy-registration officer in regard to the area of that borough."
    Sir C. SEELY: That is the point.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment can be proposed at the end of the Clause, when we reach that point.
    Mr. H. P. HARRIS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "may," to insert the words, "in case of his absence from illness or any sufficient cause."
    These important duties ought not to be performed by a deputy except in the case of illness, or for any sufficient cause. I think some limiting words are desirable.
    Sir G. CAVE: It may well be that the registration officer is fully occupied with other duties, and I think there ought to be a general power to appoint a deputy, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to add the words, "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."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words, "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."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir C. SEELY: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), at the end, after the words last inserted, to add the words:
    "Provided that in every municipal borough the town clerk, unless he is the registration officer, shall, if he is willing to act, and subject to his being approved as aforesaid, be the deputy registration officer in regard to the area of that borough."
    May I suggest to the Home Secretary that he might accept the Amendment? I think in the case of some of the small

    425
    boroughs there may be a certain amount of feeling between them and the county councils. The town clerk of the borough is fully competent to fulfil the duties of registration officer, and I should like to know from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether he could not accept the Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: Where it is a Parliamentary borough the town clerk, under the Bill, will be the registration officer, and in other cases where the clerk of the county council desires to fulfil his duties in the borough by deputy, in such cases the town clerk would be the natural person to act. But there may be cases where he does not desire to act, and I think it would be unfortunate to make it obligatory in all cases. There may be special cases where the clerk of the county council may desire to appoint someone else, although I do not think they are likely to occur where a deputy should be appointed.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: It seems to me that the inclusion of the words suggested would make it obligatory on the county council to appoint a deputy. The right hon. Gentleman assents to that. It would unnecessarily, in my view, increase the expenses of registration, and half the amount would be thrown on the Treasury. I hope the Home Secretary will not accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I understood from you, Sir, that the first Amendment on the Paper was to be put in at the end of the Clause.
    The CHAIRMAN: Yes.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3) to insert the words, "Every registration officer shall have within each constituency or electoral division a place for transacting official business, which shall be open daily. Provided that a divided borough for the purpose of this Section shall be deemed one constituency."
    I do not advocate the exact words of the Amendment, but I think it should be made quite clear that there should be in any constituency a given place where the voters could get at the registration officer, and where they could make their application to be put upon the register. It may not be necessary to have words to this effect in the Bill—on that I do not offer any opinion—but if the words are
    426
    not formally inserted in the Bill, I think a direction should be issued by the Local Government Board to the registration officer or to the town clerk, as the case may be, requiring that there should be in the constituency some office which would be convenient to the electors. It would be of considerable advantage if such a course could be followed.
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not like to give any undertaking that such a direction will be issued in every case. These are business matters which are to be dealt with by business men. No doubt, in most cases, at the important time of the year when claims are made, the registration officer will find it right to have some office, or some representative, in the constituency, and I have no doubt that that would be the general and proper procedure. But there might be exceptional cases, and in any event it would not be right to have an office open daily in each constituency, in view of the fact that for a great part of the year there is practically no registration work at all. I think the matter might well be left as it is.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: I should like what has just been said by the Home Secretary translated into some kind of action. In the county of Lancashire there are thirty-two constituencies, and it would be exceedingly inconvenient for a man or a woman engaged in another part of the county to have to go to either Preston or Lancashire, perhaps forty or fifty miles away, or at any rate a considerable distance, to make inquiries on this subject. Of course, we are very largely in the dark, because we do not know whether the proportional representation system is going to become law, but I can imagine that in a large number of counties like Lancashire great inconvenience would be experienced if there were no office within reasonable distance in those very large electoral areas at which inquiries could be made, instead of the persons concerned having to travel forty or fifty miles in order to find out their true position. I think we should have an assurance that the point will be carefully considered, so that in any constituency persons may have the opportunity of making inquiries within a reasonable distance with respect to their vote. If the Home Secretary will give us that further assurance, so far as I am concerned I shall be satisfied; but if not,

    427
    as the matter is one of great importance to the electors and the public generally, I think we ought to know a little more about it.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I cannot see myself any great difficulty in this matter. As I understand, the registration officer will be the clerk to the council, or the clerk to the borough council, or the representative of the municipality, whatever it may be, and he will combine with his other functions the function of registration officer. If that is so, and I think it is so, he has the office already, and therefore what is to prevent his putting a notice on his door intimating that inquiries as to registration are to be made at that office?
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: In many cases it might be thirty or forty miles away.
    Sir F. BANBURY: It really does not matter. What is wanted is a place to which anybody can go or write—a place where inquiry can be made, namely, the registration office. There are very few places which would be fifty miles away—certainly not in Liverpool or in London, nor in a great number of the counties. The elector must take some little trouble, and if in a few cases the office was sixty miles away, the voter would still be in a better position if he knew that he could communicate by post—postage is cheap enough—by letter, or even by postcard, with that particular place, where hi would always be certain of getting an answer to his communication. Being a strong supporter of economy I should be very much against the setting up of offices all over the place with a special set of clerks and special people to be there regularly when undoubtedly, as the Home Secretary has said, on many days nobody would come at all. If this was going to be managed by a private person who had any business aptitude or common sense he would do as I suggest and put up a notice on the office used for other purposes that any inquiry as to registration would be answered there. That would cost nothing save the expense of putting the notice on the door. All that would be necessary would be for one of the clerks to receive the letters on this subject. In my own Constituency there was a notice put on the agent's door that he would answer any question about registration in the place where he was
    428
    living. Something of that sort can easily be done in view of the fact that the registration officer is already employed by the local authorities and already has an office.
    Sir J. SPEAR: I think this is a matter of very considerable importance, especially in a constituency like mine with 100 parishes. It is important that information should be readily supplied to voters as to the procedure to pursue in order to get their names on the register. At the same time I do not think the expense of offices open all the year round is necessary. After all, the information will be available at the hands of the political agents, and voters will naturally ask for information from the political agents of the party of which they happen to be a member. It is important that as registration time aproaches the registrar should be available in the principal town. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will adhere to his decision, which I think will secure efficiency with less expense.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: We have in Sootland the exact system now proposed by the Bill to be applied in England. We have an assessor who does the whole of the registration work in every constituency, and there is not the least difficulty about the matter.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I think my hon. Friend (Sir J. Spear) did not quite understand what I suggested. I was not recommending that there should be special offices open with a great staff who would practically have nothing to do during eight months of the year. I merely suggested that in the office which already exists there should be a little notice that inquiries would be answered there about registration. That is a perfectly simple thing to do. With regard to the suggestion about party agents I understood that one of the objects was to do away with the party agents. I do not believe myself you will ever succeed in doing that however good this Bill is, and I am not going to argue that question now. We were told that one of the reasons why Members supported this Bill was that it was going to do away with party agents, and yet my hon. Friend says that the party agents will be useful in giving information to the voters. Some hon. Members therefore will be deceived if party agents continue to flourish as much in the future as in the past.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: I do not think that the meaning of this Amendment has been quite understood, either by the Home Secretary or some other Members of the Committee. Under the old practice, overseers had to make the lists in every parish. Under this proposed procedure the only place where an authoritative list will be capable of being consulted will be at the office of the registration officer. I can see the greatest possible inconvenience being caused owing to distance and expense. All that we ask is that the Home Secretary should take these matters into consideration and see if the system is going to cause any of these difficulties, and if he finds that is so, to take some reasonable steps to meet that position. We do not want to stop the progress of the Bill, but we do want the importance of the subject and the convenience of the public generally to be taken into account.
    Sir C. SEELY: I would press on the Home Secretary the importance of this question. You are taking away the registrars from each parish, and you substitute one registrar in the county town, and that may cause the very greatest inconvenience to many people and increase expense. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment, but I do ask him to consider very carefully the importance of having some arrangement for local people in each constituency. If my Amendment had been accepted with regard to the clerks of small boroughs for a very small payment, they could be induced to do the registration work, and the same thing might happen all over the district. There are some counties at present where, owing to the railway arrangement, you cannot get from particular parts to the county town and back on one day. I think it should be quite clearly understood, either in the Bill or some other manner, that there will be some place where a person can ascertain whether he has been put on the register, and, if he finds a mistake in the register, where he can go and see that that mistake is put right, and that he should have that opportunity within a reasonable distance of his own home.
    Sir G. CAVE: I quite understand the position as I have been dealing with these matters all my life, and I think hon.
    430
    Members are mixing up two different things. As regards seeing the voters' lists, those are made out and published in the manner prescribed. In the future, as in the past, they would be printed at the county office. With regard to claims and objections, which is, I think, the only point of substance, I think it would be generally a wise thing for the registration officer to have some place where people can go and make inquiries. But I think it would be a great mistake to lay down any hard and fast rule. I think the matter is one which we may leave to the common sense of the registration officer.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I do not attach any importance to the actual wording of the Amendment, which I daresay very much overstates the case, but I should like a more definite assurance that the right hon. Gentleman would ask the Local Government Board' to send instructions to the various registration officers that this should be their practice. I still hope when we come to the Report stage that the right hon. Gentleman will have some communication to make to us as to the Local Government Board doing this which would satisfy us.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Colonel SANDERS: May I ask for some further information as to who is to be allowed under Sub-section (3) to act as deputy to the registration officer. Those deputies may have very important duties to perform, and in fact almost the duties of the revising barrister. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us the kind of person he has in his mind as appropriate for the registration officer to appoint to do this work, and whether it is necessary that he should be a person with some acquaintance of the law or simply a clerk to really do the work of the revising barrister.
    Sir G. CAVE: The clerk of the county council would be very ill-advised if he did not appoint a man fitted to perform this work. I contemplate, for instance, that where necessary he would appoint a town clerk of a borough to do the work of the borough, and if he wanted a deputy for the county he would be likely to

    431
    choose a deputy clerk of the peace or somebody with sufficient knowledge to enable him to carry out the duties.
    Colonel SANDERS: Or a local solicitor.
    Sir G. CAVE: That is for the clerk to say. He would have to be an experienced man or he would not be approved by the Local Government Board.
    Colonel SANDERS: I want to point out that there will be in practice large areas where the clerk of the county council cannot possibly do the work of the county himself. In the short time allotted there will be considerable difficulty in finding in the area local people who will not have got some sort of political party associations. He will have to pick out, as the right hon. Gentleman said, perhaps the clerk of the local Petty Sessions. The Clerk of the Petty Sessions is, of course, usually a solicitor. I only want to try to bring home to my right hon. and learned Friend what my point is namely, that it will be very hard to find a local person to do this work who is quite free from any political associations. Local solicitors are so often mixed up in some way or other with the party organisations that in a big county it will be very hard to find a man to whom this work can be entrusted.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Registration Duties.)
    (1) It shall be the duty of the registration officer to compile the spring and autumn register, and to place, or cause to be placed, on the register in accordance with the rules set out in the First Schedule to this Act the names of those entitled to vote as Parliamentary electors or local government electors in his registration area.
    If a registration officer refuses, neglects or fails without reasonable cause to perform any of his duties in connection with registration, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.
    (2) His Majesty may by Order in Council prescribe the forms to be used for registration purposes and any fees to be taken in connection therewith, and alter the rules contained in the First Schedule
    432
    to this Act for the purpose of carrying this Act into full effect, or for carrying into effect any Act for the time being in force amending or affecting this Act.
    The rules contained in the First Schedule to this Act and any Order so made shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Somerset (Mr. King), proposing to compile the register "in accordance with the registration rules," seems to me unnecessary. As to the second Amendment, in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Christchurch (General Croft), which suggests the compilation of the register "after revision," I should like to know if it is intended to precede subsequent Amendments?
    Sir G. YOUNGER: It was felt best to put this Amendment where it is, as a preliminary, perhaps, to a considerable number of other Amendments.
    Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. I would suggest that it should be laid down at once by whom the list shall be revised. As it stands at present the Clause would enable the registration officer "to compile the spring and autumn register." What we desire is that there shall be some independent person to revise the list, and see that it has been properly done. Therefore, we want to put in words to that effect. I personally deprecate, as my right hon. Friend opposite—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet had better keep to the point of Order.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I think I have made the matter clear.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is all I want. I would observe a number of Amendments later on the Paper which seem to propose to resuscitate the revising barrister, and I presumed that these words were leading up to these Amendments. If that is so, perhaps we had better take the Amendment here. My point is that the words here must say that the revision has to be done by somebody. The words suggested by the hon. Member raise the point that the revision is to be done by a revising barrister, or by a revising officer, or by

    433
    the Court, or whatever words are suggested by the hon. Gentleman. The words I suggest should be, "after revision by a revising barrister."
    Sir G. CAVE: On a point of Order. This really, I think, is not the right way to raise the matter, because, according to my hon. Friend's view, the clerk should compile the list before revision.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Yes.
    Sir G. CAVE: And then have it revised by a revising barrister? I suggest that the right place for this discussion is Clause 12, where the point is raised.
    Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. Would it not be better to insert "after revision as hereinafter provided"? We do not quite know, supposing we were to carry this, who the particular official would be. If, however, it is put in "as hereinafter provided," that would meet the point. There would be some person who would fulfil the duties if he were appointed.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think I must have the thing more definite than that. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs proposes some words after the word "compile," which, I think, would really raise and settle the question now.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Yes, "after revision."
    The CHAIRMAN: After "compiled," or after "revision"?
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: Should not the words, whatever they are, come in after the word "place" ["and to place, or cause to be placed"]?
    The CHAIRMAN: What words would follow "after revision"?
    Sir F. BANBURY: "By the revising officer."
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: No matter what the words are, would they not better come in as I have suggested after the word "place"?
    The CHAIRMAN: My difficulty is not as to the place where the words should be inserted. There are several places where they could come in. But wherever they come in I think I must have some words that will mean something definite to precede what is the real proposal in the subsequent Amendments. I gather from
    434
    what the hon. Baronet has said that this is, or is-meant to be, part of a scheme. All I want to understand is what the scheme is.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: The point really is the Home Secretary does not see his way to accept the suggested Amendment in any form. The Amendment was put down in case it might be necessary to-have it there in consequence of the Amendments that are to follow, and which might be expected. I do not know whether they will or will not be moved. I am in very considerable doubt, after what the right hon. Gentleman has said; as to whether the words are really necessary. I am rather inclined to raise the-matter later on Clause 12.
    The CHAIRMAN: I will not rule it out on Clause 12 on the ground of the absence of these words.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Might I suggest that it would be much better to have the argument on this Clause, especially in. relation to "the duty of the registration officer to compile the spring and autumn register, and place or cause to be placed, on the register," and so on, "after revision by the revising officer." That will bring in the whole thing. It appoints a definite officer, and it enables us to ascertain whether or not the Home-Secretary will accept the Amendment. Surely it would be better to do that now than to raise it later on Clause 12?
    The CHAIRMAN: It does not matter to me which way the thing is done. There is an Amendment by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford University on Clause 12 to insert the words, "a revising barrister," who is to hear the appeal. That is the Amendment to which I presume these words are running. If an Amendment is moved here and another later, it will, in effect, be two Amendments on the one subject.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Surely it would be better to move the Amendment now? I trust my hon. Friend opposite will move it now in the form "after revision by a revising officer." If my hon. Friend likes, I will move that now.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Very well, I wish to go out in a little while
    Sir F. BANBURY: Then I beg to move in Sub-section (1), after the word "com-

    435
    pile" ["to compile the spring and autumn register"], to insert the words, "after revision by a revising officer."
    I would advance the argument that there ought to be some check on the registration officer. No doubt the registration officer will endeavour in ninety-nine cases out of 100 to do his duty properly, but, is my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Bridgwater Division a few moments ago wanted to point out, the work may be done by a registration officer who has political bias. You cannot help that occurring. The better a man is, the stronger is his political bias. That being so, I do not think anybody will argue—not even my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith—that the registration officer is not bound to have political bias on one side or the other. Therefore, it is much better to bring in somebody who shall have the duty imposed upon him of revising the register. It does not follow that it will be a very arduous duty. But there should be someone to check the work. I myself have very great faith in a check. You cannot carry on your business unless you have your cheek In my opinion, a check is absolutely necessary "upon the registration officer. I really do hope that the Home Secretary will seriously consider this, and accept the Amendment. I admit that the form in which the Amendment stands does not seem very clear, but I trust that I have made it clear.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I presume the Debate on this question will be taken now. I would like to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that the next Clause deals with rather a different point. The next Clause deals with an appeal on a point of law. Most of us who know anything about the Scottish system of registration object to the appeal being on a point of law, and consider that it ought to be on a point of fact. Speaking from a great deal of experience, I can assure hon. Members that our system, if it is to be adopted at all, ought to be carried out in its entirety, and not partially. At present we have our lists made up by a Government assessor who is a perfectly independent person, and really does not, I think, require very much revision; but such revision as the lists do undergo is conducted by the sheriff of the county in open court, where everybody concerned can
    436
    appear, and where the whole of the facts of the case are open. That is the system 1 should like to see adopted. I hope subsequent Amendments will make it that some other person than the registration officer shall revise the lists prepared by that officer We are having a very different class of registration under the Bill to that heretofore. I am thankful to say we are not dealing with Scotland. Scottish registration laws remain what they were; and we are thankful for that mercy. In England you may have all sorts of people, some none too competent or too well up in their duties, learning all the time, and it is most essential that some one other than the particular individual should revise the lists It is not, of course, contended that a man should revise his own lists. I hope, therefore, my right hon. and learned Friend will look into this point again, and see whether, at this stage, it is not just as well to deal with the question of revision. The other point of appeal in the next Clause is rather a different matter.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: It seems to me that this Amendment raises directly the issues of the retention of the revising barrister. The purpose, or one of the purposes, to be effected by the Resolutions of the Conference is to get rid of the revising barrister, and it seems to me that that is a very desirable thing. We are putting up in the first place a competent official, and I have no reason to think that he will be less competent than a similar individual in Scotland, about which there seemed to be some doubt expressed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger). If we are to retain the revising barrister we shall retain with him all the machinery of the party agents arguing before him, while the idea surely was to get rid of that. There may be some cases I doubt whether there will be very many, but let us assume there are a few—where a question of difficulty arises, possibly on fact, possibly on law. As far as the point of law is concerned, there is the opportunity to appeal in the case of the few difficulties that are likely to arise, in the first instance, to the County Court, and then to the Appeal Court. I dare say there might be a few cases while the scheme was being put into operation, but these decisions having been given they will be in the nature of leading cases to the registration officers of the country, most of

    437
    whom, being the clerks to the county councils or town clerks, will have had legal experience already and will be very responsible persons who, if they make a mistake, will be liable to be called to book by their respective councils. I hope we shall not go back to the system of the Revision Court, with all that it means, but that we shall stick to the machinery set up in the Bill, which seems to me to be adequate to the case.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: I sincerely hope that the Amendment will be defeated. I understood that one of the objects of the Bill was to simplify the operation of registration and make things easy for the persons to be registered. The retention of the revising barrister will involve the maintenance of the old political organisations on the old lines, as well as unnecessary expense. If the Government accept the Amendment, which appears later on the Paper, to allow questions of fact to come in under the appeals to the County Court everything, in my opinion, is provided for without the introduction of the revising barrister.
    Mr. GILBERT: I want to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Goldstone) and the hon. Member for Haggerston (Mr. Chancellor). I sincerely hope that the Government will not accept the Amendment. Those of us who have had any connection with registration for years past are all anxious that we should do away with the revising barrister's Court. Apparently it was necessary under the old registration law which this Act is doing away with, because you had different qualifications and legal points which arose in which it was necessary to have a legal decision which could only be given by a revising barrister. Under this Act all that kind of thing has been done away with, and the thing to be decided is mainly the question of fact, as to whether a person has lived for six months in a certain residence. I venture to suggest to the Committee that that is a matter which can quite easily be decided by the registration officer to be appointed under the Act, who in many cases will be the local town clerk or clerk to the county council. I hope that later on, on the next Clause, we shall be able to have an appeal as regards the question of fact in the appeal to the County Court which is provided by Clause 12. As I have said before in the previous dis-
    438
    cussions on this Bill, one of the reasons why I am strongly in favour of it is because it simplifies our electoral law, and I am quite certain that if we go back to revising barristers, and have all the paraphernalia of revising barristers, we are going back to the condition in which we were before, and that we are asking for opposition from all sorts of people who will claim to go on the list. I believe under the new six months' qualification we have mainly, or only, the question of fact, and I believe that the procedure provided for in Clause 12, with the proposed Amendments which I hope the Government will accept, will provide all that is necessary.
    Mr. MACMASTER: If a revising authority is to intervene at the stage suggested it is a complete reversal of the whole scheme contained in this Bill. The idea was in framing these Clauses, and the provisions on which they are based, that we should get rid of the revising barrister altogether, particularly in view of the fact that the system will be very much simplified. It seems to me that if a responsible person is appointed registration officer we must trust to him in this matter. After him, what is the recourse if we are dissatisfied? It is to the County Court, but that may be too limited. It is only an appeal in respect of questions of law, and I agree with those hon. Members who say that there must be some protection against the prejudice of the officer who determines the list in the first instance. I think that can be solved by allowing the appeal to the County Court to be in respect not only of law but of fact. It is clear that the County Court cannot dispose of all the cases; hence the provision for deputy judges, pro tem, to be appointed. Then there is the further appeal from the County Court, and in respect of that I suggest that the appeal should only be on points of law.
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I think some hon. Members will be influenced by what the Government will say when we come to Clause 12. I do not feel quite satisfied with the infallibility of the registration officer in matters of fact, and that there should be no check on his decision. I do not think that will always inspire confidence. If the Government means to extend the appeal to the County Court, under Clause 12, so that it shall relate to matters of fact as well as to matters of law, then I, personally, should be quite

    439
    satisfied. If that is not the case, I am inclined to think there might be some reason for some kind of check in revision. Perhaps the Government will tell us what they mean to do on that point, and if they do so I am sure a great deal of unnecessary discussion on this Amendment will be saved.
    Sir G. CAVE: Of course, it is quite right to keep separate in our minds the question raised in this Amendment under Clause 11 and the question of appeal under Clause 12. This Amendment provides not for an appeal from the decision given by the registration officer but for getting the assistance and control in the Court of revision of some revising officer. In fact, the proposal is that there should be a kind of double revision of the list every half-year. I think that would become a rather burdensome thing. For myself, I think that to adopt this Amendment would be to fly in the face of one of the main objects of the Speaker's Conference. I think it was the desire of the Conference that there should be an official register under which it shall be the duty of a responsible officer, who must be an experienced and capable man, to put people upon this register automatically without their having to go time after time to make a claim, and without having the whole system of agents, and so on. The whole point is to get a proper official register, which will go on by itself without constant interference by agents and those who are claiming the vote. If, therefore, we can get that I think it is worth having. I am not wanting in sympathy for the revising barrister. As an individual I know him very well, and I have a great respect for him; but I think it would be a good thing to get rid of the revision Court, which has given rise to great loss of time, if we can do so without injustice to the individual.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. C. Roberts) that the view the Committee may take on this Amendment may fairly be affected by the decision likely to be arrived at on the question arising on Clause 12. Clause 12 gives at present an appeal from the registration officer on questions of law only to the County Court, the effect, of course, being that on all questions of fact the decision of the registration officer is final. I waited to hear what hon. Members thought on that point, and, having heard their views, I am bound to say that I
    440
    agree with them to a great extent. I think it is a little dangerous to leave to one man, however capable and desirous of doing his duty he may be, the right to give a final decision on all questions of fact. I do not want to anticipate the decision on Clause 12, because some Members may come into the House and take a different view, as sometimes happens. At present I gather that the view of hon. Members who are in the House is that there should be an appeal given on questions of fact as well as on questions of law. I think I am entitled to say that on the present material that is my view, and that we should make that change. If, however, that change is to be made, I think it better not to make the change contained in the Amendment.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: Several hon. Members have said that they are very anxious to get rid of all the paraphernalia of the revision Courts and of the party agents appearing before those Courts, while the Home Secretary has said that that is an object of the Bill, and that that was the proposal of the Speaker's Conference. As to that, I dare say we are all agreed; but I think hon. Members are still suffering from illusions to imagine that that result is going to follow from this Bill, whether this Amendment is put in or not. There are hon. Members who overlook the rules set out in the Schedule, in which very elaborate provision is made for the hearing of objections, and claims, and so forth. The only difference is that you are calling the revising barrister by a new name. Instead of having all the work done at the instance of the party agents before a revising barrister you are going to have exactly the same work, and a great deal more, done, not before a revising barrister, but before county council clerks in the counties and town clerks in the towns. Of course, I admit that the simplification of the franchise does probably enable that work to be done by an unskilled man, from the lawyer's point of view, whereas under the complicated and complex franchise hitherto existing it was more necessary to employ a skilled lawyer, and therefore I am not prepared to say that that work may not be done, and thoroughly done, by the clerk to the county council or by the town clerk, as the case may be. But do not let hon. Members suppose that that work of revision, the machinery of which is provided in the Schedule, is going to be done without the appearance before

    441
    these officers of the party agents, with all the machinery of objection, or of supporting the claim or objection by evidence. That will all go on exactly as it has done before, the only difference being that owing to various provisions in the Bill—especially, as I think, owing to the particular manner in which Clause 1 is drafted, to which I took objection at the time we were considering that Clause—there will be a very large number of perfectly unnecessary objections in order that in the very short time open for the investigation of these claims the party agents may have an opportunity of going into the cases to see whether they tan support them or not. So far, therefore, as expense and the work of the party agents are concerned, I do not think there is the slightest difference introduced by this Bill. I am not really very much concerned one way or the other as to whether this Amendment is accepted or not, but I do think that, considering that the work will have to be done, it would be rather better that it should be well done than ill done. Unless it can be shown, too, that the revision suggested by this Amendment would ensure a more efficient administration of the Act I should like to see the Amendment inserted in the Clause.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. H. P. HARRIS: I think the Amendment on the Paper would give a right of appeal to the County Court on questions of fact as well as of law. The Conference recommended that the County Courts should take the place of a revising barrister, but the revising barrister would exercise some judicial functions. I hope the matter may be dealt with on Clause 12.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am in the recollection of what took place at the Conference. We agreed to do away with the revising barristers, and as a substitute the question of the County Court arose. But there was a question as to whether the County Courts would be able to do the work and whether they were not already very much occupied. As far as my memory goes, that question was shelved. I do not know that it was proceeded with further, at all events while I was present. I think it was suggested that there should be some additional judges appointed to assist—at any rate I am quite certain while I was there it was held that putting this work on the County Courts would cause an enormous increase in the work
    442
    of the Courts with which it was practically certain they could not cope. The hon. Member misunderstood the effect of my Amendment. It is for the provision of a revising officer; there is nothing about a barrister in it. It may be in a consequential Amendment that "barrister" appears. It would be quite easy to alter that in the only place where the consequential Amendment might allow of "revising officer" being put. Let me put the reasons why I think the difficulty has arisen in respect of the necessity for a revision of this sort. I raised the question of the County Courts. There would be an enormous amount of additional work thrown on the County Courts. Whoever has performed the duty, this will entail an enormous amount of work upon the County Courts, and cannot we do something to lessen that work in the least expensive way? That is the object of my Amendment, that the registration officer should have somewhere where he can do what is necessary. I do not mean to say that there should be a Court, and three or four rooms in which applicants are to appear before some official, but where they can go and be able to say to him "such-and-such is my name, and J do not happen to be on the register," or to point out some person who is there and should not be there. If they cannot do that, the next procedure will be to go to the County Court and have the matter investigated there. There would be an enormous amount of work, but to put, as the Bill now stands, in the hands of one officer, from whom there could be no appeal except on a question of law, the sole power of determining whether the applicant should or should not be on the register is a mistake, and will lead to complication. We ought to have a registration officer. It is said he may have a little bias, and he cannot avoid it, but it is absolutely necessary, in my opinion, that there should be an independent officer who will have the power of checking the list. In some divisions there are always some persons who know the law in connection with registration, and if an advisory officer could be appointed it would save a great many appeals, and a great deal of work which will otherwise go to the County Court.
    Sir HARRY SAMUEL: My recollection of what happened at the Conference was that it was never the intention to substitute the County Court for one minute

    443
    I say the registration officer should do the work primarily and the appeals should go to the County Court, but it was thought that they would have more work than they could take. As I understand the Home Secretary intends to make an alteration in Clause 12, it will be in order there.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: The alteration of the Home Secretary is entirely my view of the whole Amendment. In Scotland there is a Court which is the equivalent of the County Court here. In this case the whole system is easier, and I think it would be a great mistake to have a double revision.
    Mr. CAUTLEY: I am going to suggest to the Home Secretary a way out of the difficulty. If he would have assistant overseers responsible for the list in the first instance, and then a registration officer in the position of a revising barrister, you would have a more equitable basis and the change the hon. Member desires. Some such change, I think, is necessary. I am at a loss to understand why a departure has been made in the present case. I have no schedules before me, but, going back a century up to the present time, the assistant overseer, except in London, is responsible for revising the lists, and it seems to me something could be done in this direction here. I have an Amendment by which the returning officer may employ the assistant overseer. If the assistant overseer is made responsible you get a system and a regular scheme of bringing appeals before the revising barrister, who is independent, and a system for appeal to the county court on the question of law. So far as London is concerned, I can see no objection. The borough council is responsible for the whole of this, but I believe, as a matter of fact, they depute their duties to the borough engineer, or the borough treasurer, or someone of that kind.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I should like to say a few words, having had some practical experience of registration difficulties such as those foreshadowed by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. One great reform has been fought for for years. I remember a Bill being introduced some thirty years ago to get rid of the machinery of the revising barrister and set up a substantial person as a registration officer. We all know that under the old system of overseers you have
    444
    no one responsible. If you had a responsible person to issue the list of voters I do not think there would have been any difficulties. I remember the time in London when the overseers made up the lists of their boroughs themselves. They had not, however, a lot of claims with regard to householders, but there were great difficulties with regard to objections. When starting at Hackney they created a registration office with a registration officer. They could not afford to do it, so they appointed a registration clerk. He commenced, so far as the law allowed him, to compile a list, and it was of a most interesting and astonishing character of the way things had been managed. They got a complete list of householders, but there was the difficulty as regards lodgers, and the party agents had to do the whole work of the lodger franchise. As you have had a responsible registration officer taking these lists and issuing them and having, the power under the law of challenging any statements you will have all the protection of the Act that may be necessary.
    I do not myself believe that, after the first registration, there will be anything like this flood of cases in the County Court. The points will be settled. The simplicity of the qualification removes, nine-tenths of the difficulties that existed previously. I do not for a moment think you will do away with party agents. I believe they will assist you, and I believe in connection with registration work, with efficient registration offices, their work will be much less than at the present time. With regard to partisanship, the individual will be responsible to the authorities above him, and if in any case a great scandal arises—and it must be a great scandal to be at all effective—in which a person holding the position of registration officer is guilty of gerrymandering, I believe he would very soon be out of his position, and my experience is that these officials, while they may have strong partisan opinions, being in these permanent jobs, naturally have a strong desire to keep them. I am glad the Home Secretary is going to stand by the Clause.
    Mr. DENNISS: I would like to appeal to the Home Secretary to consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend opposite, because the registration officer appointed under Clause 10 really performs two-functions. He performs the function at present discharged by the assistant overseer in compiling the list, and he also

    445
    performs the function of the revising barrister. If the assistant-overseer continues to be the person who compiles the list in the first instance, the registration officer can then act as a sort of revising barrister, and then the appeal will lie to the County Court. If you do not have these two authorities the registration officer has the whole thing in his own hands, and, under Clause 12, there is to be no appeal against any decision of the registration officer upon a question of fact only or upon the admissibility or effect of any evidence or admission adduced or made in any case to establish any matter of fact only. Therefore, nobody can overrule his decision on facts in any circumstances, and it is only when you can show that he is wrong in law that you can question his decisions. If he goes ever so wrong, as he possibly may, being a layman, on questions of fact, he cannot be questioned in any way. If the overseer prepares the list, as he did before, let the registration officer then perform the function of the revising barrister by checking the list, and then the appeal would go to the County Court in the usual way. I hope the Home Secretary will consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend opposite, and, although I quite agree that the concession he has made on Clause 12 is one which is most welcome, that really does not meet the point.
    Amendment negatived.
    The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West Newington (Mr. Gilbert), we settled that question, I think, on Clause 5.
    Mr. GILBERT: Would it be in order for me to move it in an amended form, leaving out the words referring to age, so that the Amendment would then read, "and it shall be his further duty to compile a list after inquiry made at each house in his area of all soldiers, sailors, and other persons entitled to claim to be registered by virtue of Section 5 of this Act," and then leave out the words "who are at the time of the making of the register not less than eighteen years of age," and then the Amendment would go on: "and he shall set against the names of such persons their respective ranks, regiment, or ship, as the case may be, home address, and former occupation," leaving out the rest of the words.
    The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the duty of compiling a list, we had a long discussion on that point on Clause 5, and it was understood that the military authorities were going to take the necessary steps. The Government made a statement, on that, point which the hon. Member will recollect.
    Mr. GILBERT: But this is a question of the registration officer compiling a list of the names, and the rank, regiment or ship' to which a man belongs. The point of this Amendment is that we want to get on the list of the registration officer the rank, regiment, or ship and former occupation, in order that that may be dealt with by the Reconstruction Committee.
    The CHAIRMAN: You cannot introduce Reconstruction into a Franchise Bill, or you might raise a number of social reforms.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: On a point of Order. I understand that the names are to be given by the naval and military authorities to the local authorities, but is there anything to prevent the local authorities from making a house to house canvass to-check the list sent in by the naval and military authorities?
    The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order. I think there is a place in the Schedule where you can properly raise that question, especially in connection with the absent voter.
    Colonel SANDERS: Is the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Devizes Mr. Peto) out of order?
    The CHAIRMAN: That is the same question, "to place the names of all persons registered as Parliamentary electors, under the provisions of Section five of this Act, upon the list of absent voters." In one respect it is settled in Clause 5, and in the other respect it is dealt with in-Schedule 1. I think that is clear.
    Mr. TURTON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "officer" ["If a registration officer refuses"], to insert the words "overseer, or assistant-overseer."
    Very properly, the Bill provides that the registration officer shall be liable to be fined in the event of his not doing his duty, but the Bill also provides that, in the event of the registration officer not preparing the list of voters, he may require the overseer or assistant-overseer to prepare the list for him, and to furnish

    447
    all necessary information. There is no provision at all in the Bill that if the overseer or assistant-overseer fails to carry out the requirement or give the information asked for by the registration officer he can be compelled to do so. I think it is advisable that there should be a provision to compel the overseer or assistant-overseer to perform his duties. Of course, I do not for a moment suggest a high penalty, but I do submit it would be wise to have a provision that the overseer or assistant-overseer can be compelled to carry out his duties.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): This Clause is designed to compel the registration officer to carry out the duties conferred upon him by the Act, and if he refuses, neglects, or fails to perform any of those duties he is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100. The responsibility referred to falls very properly upon the registration officer, and I do not think it is necessary to impose fines on any of those whom he is called upon to employ. After all, it is for him to carry out his duties. My hon. Friend says that the overseer or assistant-overseer may refuse to provide the registration officer with the information which he ought to give him. I can hardly imagine that such cases would arise, but I think there would be other ways of dealing with a recalcitrant overseer or assistant overseer if he did anything of that kind.
    Colonel SANDERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the present position of the overseer is, because this Bill does not alter their duties very much? I am at a loss to understand whether he is liable to penalties if he neglects his duty. Perhaps my right hon. Friend can enlighten me.
    Mr. TURTON: I only desire to carry out what the revising barrister can do now, which is to fine an overseer if he fails to do his duty, and I suggest that a Court of Summary Jurisdiction should have the same power which previously rested with the revising barrister. There is no earthly power to make an overseer give information to a registration officer under this or any other Act. I do not suggest the registration officer should be in the same position as the revising barrister and be entitled to impose fines, but
    448
    I do say that it would be impossible to get this information from the overseer unless there were some power to bring him to book in the event of his refusal.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am not going to suggest what penalties should be imposed upon the overseer. I do not remember off-hand what is the actual position, certainly in the country, of an overseer. So far as I remember in my county, he is generally a farmer, and he has an assistant overseer, who is paid, and is an official. I forget whether the duties are obligatory or not, but if he gets any pay it is very small, and he is not a regular official. Unless something of this sort is put in, I do not know what penalty can be imposed.
    Mr. FISHER: The overseers will be paid by the registration officer, as part of the expenses of registration, a sum of money which will be of value to them, and that being the case, they will be anxious to discharge their duties and retain their position. You will have the hold you have over any man to whom you pay money. If my hon. Friend is anxious on this subject, I will give the point further consideration.
    Mr. TURTON: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Colonel SANDERS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "refuses" ["If a registration officer refuses"] to insert the words "or wilfully."
    I move this Amendment on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Nield). I think it makes the meaning of the Clause a little clearer. By a subsequent Amendment it is proposed to leave out the words "or fails without reasonable cause." It seems to me that it is a less cumbersome expression, and quite effective for the purpose of the Bill.
    Mr. FISHER: I do not think the word "wilfully" is at all necessary, and it will be much better to leave the proposal as it is. If the officer fails to perform his duty he is liable to the penalties imposed by the Bill.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am glad to say that I agree with my right hon. Friend on this point.
    Colonel SANDERS: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (2). I have always objected very strongly to taking away from this House the power of knowing what it is doing and giving to the Government by Order in Council powers to make regulations without the knowledge and approval of this House. In an important Bill of this kind I think the House ought to know what it is doing, and we ought not to give power to the Government without the authority of this House to amend the Bill as it leaves this House. May I ask hon. Members for a moment to look at the first Schedule of this Bill. It begins on page 22, and there are seven-and-a-half pages full of all sorts of rules which, apparently, if the Schedule is passed in its present form, will have received the approval of this House, and now we are going to say that His Majesty may, by Order in Council, alter the rules contained in the first Schedule to this Act for the purpose of carrying this Act into full effect. If the Government can alter the rules and make other rules, why put them into the Schedule at all? I hope my right hon. Friend will either consent to accept my Amendment to leave out this particular Sub-section or that he will so modify the Section that these powers will be done away with. Some power may be necessary to deal with small matters, but that power should be limited. I am sorry the committee is so empty, but I hope those hon. Members who are here will support me in this matter, because it does go to the root of the power and authority of this House, which is or ought to be the predominant factor. The Government come down and increasingly ask us to pass Bills which contain provisions either that the Government by Order in Council or some particular Department may make alterations in the very Bill of which the House has approved. Sometimes it says that those alterations must lie on the Table, but no one knows that they are there, and when they are seen, and there is any objection to them, they can only be discussed after eleven o'clock when Members are tired and it is difficult to get a full attendance. This seems to me to be a most serious question, and I trust my right hon. Friend will either accept this Amendment or give me a pledge that he will so alter this proposal as to whittle it down and leave these powers quite different to what they are now
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I should like to say that the hon. Baronet who has just spoken is always a very watchful guardian of Bills in this House. I think the Subsection which he has referred to has provided ground for some criticism. I am not sure that this proposal follows precedents on all points. It contains three provisions. The first is that
    "His Majesty may by Order in Council prescribe the forms to be used for registration purposes and any fees to be taken in connection therewith."
    I do not think any objection can be taken to that and it is a necessary provision. It also contains this provision which seems to me to be unusual. It enables an Order in Council to be made altering the rules contained in the First Schedule of this Act for the purpose of carrying this Act into full effect. That seems to me a somewhat odd power to confer by Order in Council. The First Schedule contains a very large number of detail matters, and it may be that in course of time some modification might be necessary in them, and it would be unfortunate to require the Government of the day always to come to Parliament for a fresh Act of Parliament on some minute point of detail. I do not know whether it would be possible to consider, between now and the Report stage, this point instead of giving a perfectly general power to undo to-morrow what the House of Commons may have decided today. The third portion of this Sub-section is also very unusual, for it enables an Order in Council to be made
    "for carrying into effect any Act for the time being in force amending or affecting this Act."
    That is to say, if, ten years' hence, some amending Bill is introduced and passed dealing with any matter, franchise, or registration, then the Parliament of that day will find, unless it repeals this provision, that we have enacted that at that time the Government of the day may make Orders in Council applying the provisions of that new Act. I do not know whether that is what is intended, and I await an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. If that is so, I certainly consider that it requires a considerable defence before Parliament should provide that Orders in Council may be made applying to any future Act which at some subsequent date may be passed into law
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I would like to support the suggestion which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland, and I ask the Government to take out this Sub-section. The part of the Sub-section which reads,
    "or for carrying into effect any Act for the time being in force amending or affecting this Act"
    is a very large provision, and far too large to pass in a small Committee like we have at the present moment. It gives power to make Orders in Council to carry into effect any Act for the time being affecting this present Act, and I do not know of a precedent for anything of this kind. These powers are being given in this Act for the first time, and I suggest that the Government should have time to reflect upon the matter and consider this point again when we come to the Report stage, in order to see if these words cannot be omitted altogether. I do not see that the omission of this Sub-section makes any difference to the Bill or the Clause, and as it stands the Clause is taking very much greater powers than are necessary. For these reasons I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this point.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I regard with some apprehension a Clause in the Bill enabling rules to be altered by an Order in Council, which is an entirely new procedure. One can see that rules which are set out in the Schedule may require alteration, but one would suppose that the best and most sensible body to alter the rules would be those who have had some experience of the working of the Act. In the High Courts rules are altered by committees having experience of the way in which the rules have operated, and they take into account the changing necessities of the Act. I should have thought that in an Act of this importance it might have been possible to establish rule committees consisting, perhaps, of some of the principal registration officers, County Court judges, who have had practical experience of the rules, and possibly the Home Secretary or someone representing the Home Office. The general power which is given, by this Act is unusual, and I do not think in practice it will work.
    I confess I quite agree with what fell from the late Home Secretary, who pointed out that it is entirely unusual that you should apply some future Act of Parliament to an existing Act by an Order in Council. The right way to do it, I should
    452
    have thought, would be, if you are going to introduce some Act of Parliament in the future which affects the existing Act you are passing, that you should so confine it in the future Act of Parliament. You have only to say that an Act of a certain date shall be altered, and then the House could consider the alteration; but to give power in a general Order in Council to apply a new Act of Parliament to a new one seems to me to be quite a startling procedure. For these reasons I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether this general power given by Order in Council is not too wide, and whether, if the rules are altered, they should not be altered by some independent authority.
    Colonel SANDERS: I do not agree with my right hon. Friend in regard to omitting the whole of this Sub-section.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I only put this Amendment down in its present form in order to raise a discussion, and I should be quite willing to leave any words in which may be necessary.
    Colonel SANDERS: My right hon. Friend said that his real objection was to the latter part of the Sub-section.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The two latter parts.
    Colonel SANDERS: The first part of the Sub-section enables His Majesty, by Order in Council, to alter the rules contained in the First Schedule of this Act. Those rules are some of the most important parts of the whole Bill, and they are likely to be even more important when we come to the Schedule. We have been told that the Schedule is the place where the machinery by which the soldiers and sailors will be enabled to vote will be put in. What decision the House will come to as to the means by which those sailors and soldiers are to vote, of course, I do not know. Whatever it is, I think they should vote in the way this House lays down, and not in the way the Government may lay down at some subsequent period by Order in Council. If the soldiers' and sailors' vote depends entirely upon this Schedule, it will be at the option of some pacifist Government at some future time to out that vote out altogether by Order in Council. The hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) does not agree with me, but if he will look at the Bill he will find that it is perfectly clear. I do not know what the precedents are on this subject, but whatever they may be we ought

    453
    not on such an important matter to leave the whole future of this voting of soldiers and sailors to be determined by Order in Council.
    Mr. FISHER: I have sometimes in other days joined with my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) in trying to protect the House from the ever-growing encroachments of Orders in Council on Acts of Parliament, and I therefore have a good deal of sympathy with him when he seems to discover here a very large power by Order in Council to override an Act of Parliament. The precedent of the Local Government Act of 1888, for which this has been drawn, has certainly worked very well, and Orders in Council under that Act have been made quite frequently affecting registration law. Section 76, Sub-section (7) of that Act reads:
    "It shall be lawful for Her Majesty the Queen, by Order in Council, from time to time to alter the instructions, precepts, notices, and forms under the Registration of Electors Acts, in such manner as appears to Her Majesty necessary for carrying into effect this Act and the County Electors Act, 1888, and any other Act for the time being in force amending or affecting the Acts mentioned in this Sub-section."
    Here is a very valuable precedent. I myself am not at all anxious to extend the powers of Orders in Council—we are in danger sometimes of having Acts of Parliament overriden by Orders in Council—but of all cases this, I think, is one where you must give power to any Government to put the Act into force by Order in Council. The rules in the First Schedule, of course, relate to procedure, and they must undergo alteration from time to time as experience shows them to be good or bad here or there, or to have this or that effect. It might well be that Parliament might not be sitting at the time, or if Parliament were sitting, it might not be possible to bring in an amending Act; and just at the most important time of the compilation of the register, as regards the dates laid down for making claims or making objections, the whole of the machinery might really prove by actual experience to be ineffective. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel) at all events seems to have it in mind that for the first year or two it will be very necessary to have some considerable
    454
    power residing in the Government by which they may alter these rules by Order in Council. That is almost as far as I should myself go; but, after all, if we have this power for the first year or two the House of Commons will have an opportunity of reconsidering the whole position as regards the rules. It will be perfectly possible when we are amending this Act—I do not doubt that after experience we shall have to amend it in some respects—to see how far these rules should be made permanent in a Schedule in an Act of Parliament, or how far you should extend or limit the power of any Government to alter them by Order ii Council.
    It is necessary that the Government which brings the Act into force should have very large powers by Order in Council to alter them, because they may find almost at once that some of then are not the best and most workable rules by which to bring the Act into force. That is the reason we are taking these large powers. There will, however, be another opportunity of considering this question when we come to the rules themselves, and it may be, when we come to discuss the First Schedule, that we may come to the conclusion that the powers we are seeking in this Clause are toe wide. It will then be perfectly possible for the House to express its opinion and for us to go back on Report and to water down and dilute to a certain extent the powers that we now take under Clause 11. That is the explanation which I have to give to the House, and I hope that explanation will prove satisfactory to both of my hon. Friends.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: I am not sure that my hon. Friend will find the explanation satisfactory. I do not think a convenient opportunity of considering this whole matter will really arise on the First Schedule, because there we shall be considering a number of details on matters which cover many pages, and it will not be possible to discuss the question of principle underlying the whole subject. If the provisions in the First Schedule may soon need recasting by the Government in the light of experience, then they ought not to have been put into a Schedule at all, and ought not to have statutory validity. They ought to have been put in the form of a draft Order in Council and laid before the House to show what was intended.
    Mr. FISHER: We desired to give the House the fullest possible information about the rules, and that was why we put them in the Schedule. It is quite true that they might have been put in an Order in Council, but it was because we desired to acquaint the House with the kind of rules we proposed that we put them into the Schedule.
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: I am not saying that they ought not to be brought before the House of Commons—they certainly ought—but the Government had two alternatives. One was to put them in the Schedule of the Act, in which case they have statutory validity, but they ought not at the same time to take power the moment the House has passed the Schedule to alter it by Order in Council. The other alternative was to lay them before the House in the form of a draft Order in Council so that the House might have cognisance of them, and might alter them if necessary. Such an Order in Council Slight be allowed by another Order in Council. Now that the course of putting the rules into the Schedule of the Bill has been adopted and it may be found necessary later on to alter them in some particulars whilst it may not be possible, necessary, or desirable to trouble Parliament with another Bill dealing with some quite minute point, I would suggest that it should be provided that they should be altered by Order in Council, but that we should put into the Bill a provision that such Order in Council should be laid before Parliament and in the event of either House passing an Address praying for an alteration in the Order in Council that such alteration should be made. That is the usual formula which appears in a very large number of Statutes. In that way we should have the rules before us in the Schedule, and it would still be possible by a simple and expeditious process to amend them, if amendment were necessary, whilst at the same time the anomaly would not be perpetrated of Parliament legislating one day and giving power to the Government to alter that legislation the next day without itself having a constitutional opportunity of checking the action of the Government. My right hon. Friend did not really give a satisfactory answer to the objection raised to the third portion of this particular Sub-section which gives power to make an Order in Council to
    "alter the rules contained in the First Schedule to this Act for the purpose of
    456
    carrying this Act into full effect or for carrying into effect any Act for the time being in force amending or affecting this Act."
    A precedent need not necessarily be a conclusive argument, and, indeed, the quoting of that precedent of the Local Government Act of 1888 seems to me to illustrate the very danger of this process, because I do not think there is a single member of this Committee who was aware of, or had present in his mind, that provision in the Act of 1888. Yet in that Act all that we are doing in this Bill, so far as it relates to local government elections, can be effected by Order in Council. That Act provides that an Order in Council may be made applying any future Act dealing with local government. This Act deals with local government elections, and an Order in Council may be made under the Act of 1888 dealing with any of the provisions which we are now passing, so far as they relate to local government. That shows how dangerous the powers may be so far as they extend, not to the legislation under discussion, but to any legislation which may be passed later. I would therefore suggest to the Government that these last words,
    "or for carrying into effect any Act for the time being in force amending or affecting this Act,"
    are dangerous and unnecessary, and that if at any future time any Orders in Council are necessary to carry into effect the provisions of any future Act, the powers of that Order in Council should be embodied in the Act concerned, and not in this Act.
    6.0 P.M.
    Colonel Sir C. SEELY: I hope the Government are really not too modest. This question of registration is one which is quite well known, and one with which we have all been concerned for a long time. I cannot think this long list of rules will require any alteration, but if any alteration is required it will probably be of so small a character as not to give any difficulty in getting it through this House. The precedent which the right hon. Gentleman gave was a precedent, as I understood it, applying to local government elections only. It is not wise for us to regard a precedent which deals with local government elections and affairs only as being a proper precedent to apply to the far more serious question of Parliamentary

    457
    elections. In the case of local government elections and electors there could be no allegation of any political bias on the part of the Government of the day. Nobody can say that any rules they make as to those affairs are based upon anything but a desire to make the rules more efficacious. But in the case of Parliamentary elections there is undoubtedly a risk that anything that is done by the Government might be subjected to criticism from the point of view of political bias. Therefore, it is not desirable to give to any Government the power of altering rules made with regard to Parliamentary elections in such a simple, plain, and autocratic manner as is given by means of Orders in Council. Of course, if the Government think that they have not drawn up the rules sufficiently accurately and that it may be necessary for them to alter them at once, we can deal with the matter in the manner suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. E. Samuel) and simply put in a paragraph providing that the Orders in Council should be laid on the Table of the House. I would, however, suggest to the Home Secretary that he is unduly modest and nervous about his own rules and that it would be a far more dignified course for the Committee to adopt to leave out the whole of this Subsection, except the provision which is absolutely necessary, namely, that
    "His Majesty may by Order in Council prescribe the forms to be used for registration purposes and any fees to be taken in connection therewith,"
    because those matters are not dealt with in the Schedule and must be dealt with by Order in Council. The Government should trust their own skilled draftsmen. As regards the rules they have drawn up, normally they are very good indeed, and I do not believe for one moment that they will require amendment. My own feeling is that this Sub-section has been put in almost entirely owing to the bad habit into which we have allowed the draftsmen of the House to get whenever they bring in a Bill—namely, to put in a provision enabling the Government to alter it immediately afterwards. That has two evil effects. It is bad for the Government, and is not consonant with the dignity of the House. It has the serious effect of making people much less careful as to the Acts of Parliament they pass and their actual wording, which, in itself, is not a
    458
    good thing, and does not lead to harmonious working. I strongly press the Government to consider whether it would not be much better to leave out these words. If after we have considered the rules and any alterations the Committee may make in them, the Government think that they have been so upset and damaged by the Committee that it will be necessary for them to take power to put straight the messes the Committee has committed, they may be able to persuade us on Report to give them that power.
    Sir G. CAVE: I feel very grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sir C. Seely) for the compliment he paid to the Government and to the Government draftsmen. He seems to think that the rides in the Schedule are so exceedingly well drafted that it is most unlikely that in the course of a few years they will be found deficient. That is quite contrary to experience. These rules go into great detail, and deal with a number of matters. It is very likely, indeed—at all events, it is possible—that after a few months' or a years' time you may find some defects in them, possibly quite a small matter of some date or time, which would necessitate a change. Therefore it would be prudent to have in some part of the provisions for meeting defects of that kind. We might have taken one of three courses. We might, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. H. Samuel) says, have left the rules out of the Bill altogether and simply taken power in the Bill to make rules by Order in Council. We did not take that course. It might have saved the Committee and us a good deal of trouble. We did not do so because we thought that some of these matters are new and all of them are, at any rate, important, and that the House would like to see the kind of Regulations we proposed to make, which involve, in some cases, dealing with old Regulations and in others with Acts of Parliament. We therefore thought it right to put them into the Schedule. The second course would have been to put them in and make them unchangeable. There is much risk in that. The third course was to put them into the Schedule and give the Government power to change them from time to time. The last, I think, is the right course. If the general view is that after these rides are made they should not be altered by Order in Council only but that there should be power in Parliament

    459
    to object to any changes, I recognise, of course, the force of that observation. I will certainly look into it, in the hope of meeting that view and of putting down an Amendment on Report to give effect to the suggestion. I ought to add this caution: The Amendment ought to take such a form that the rules will be valid until an Address is presented against them. They ought not to be made conditional upon the assent of Parliament. They ought to take effect at once, subject to the possibility of some objection being taken by an Address from either House. If that is accepted, that is the course I should like to pursue. I should like to add about the final words, which are taken as my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board said, from another Act of Parliament, that they are words which give power by these rules to determine the procedure, not only for the purpose of carrying this Bill into effect, but of carrying into effect
    "any Act for the time being in force amending or affecting this Act."
    Those words were taken from an existing Statute. The purpose of them is this: This Bill may be amended by a future Statute. Then you will have as the statutory law governing the matter the two Acts together, and any rules which you want after that will give effect to the two Acts together. It is not necessary or desirable to put into an amending Act a fresh power to make rules. You take power in the principal Act to amend rules, both under the principal Act and under the amending Act. It is the usual practice. We should be able to deal with any defects. I would rather keep the words in the Bill as they stand, because they are in accordance with Parliamentary practice.
    Sir C. HOBHOUSE: The Committee is very much indebted to the Home Secretary for the announcement he has made. The only point that brings me to my feet is that while I agree with practically everything he has said I am not quite sure that I am in agreement with the last part of his remarks. I do not see the difficulty of putting into any future Bill a power to make rules carrying that future Bill into effect. I gather that on that point I have the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel) and the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). I would ask the Home Secretary,
    460
    before he finally comes to a decision on this point, to consider whether it would not be just as easy for the Government to limit the third condition dealing with any future Act to dealing with any rules under this Bill and leaving any future Bill to take care of itself. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board quoted an admirable precedent in which there is much force. I suggest the right hon. Gentleman should make a further concession in addition to that he has announced. It would be found so satisfactory and conciliatory that I hope the right hon. Baronet will withdraw his Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: May I think those last works over before Report?
    Sir F. BANBURY: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board says we have both fought upon this point together before when we were on the same side. I had a doubt in my own mind as to whether there was a precedent. It appears there is. I remember perfectly what the late Sir Charles Dilke said when a precedent which was a bad one was brought up. He said it was not wise to go upon a bad precedent, and if you have a bad precedent, instead of acting upon it, you should take care that you did not, because if a precedent was a bad one it should not be operative in the future. I agree that is the proper course to pursue. I have already said, when the Home Secretary was out of the Committee, that although I put down the Amendment to leave out the whole of the Sub-section I did not wish to leave out the first two lines. I only moved the Amendment in its present form in order to obtain a discussion upon the whole of the Subsection instead of having a separate discussion upon its different parts. I should prefer if at the present moment we left out all the words after the word "therewith." The Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board suggested that we should leave all the words in and that we might amend the Schedule. That is impossible because we shall have passed this then. I do not like to put off all these things until the Report stage. Nor do I like very much the plan of laying the Order in Council upon the Table. Very few people see such Orders in Council and it is very difficult to get anybody to attend to them. However, it does, to a certain extent, preserve the control of Parliament. The Parliamentary

    461
    Secretary to the Local Government Board said he thought that in the next year or two it might be necessary to alter these rules and I gathered that he was prepared to accept an Amendment which would limit such an Amendment to the next year or two.
    Mr. FISHER: I did not suggest that. I thought it was most necessary to give the Government power by Order in Council to alter the rules while those rules were in an experimental stage, but that after the registration officers and voters have had experience of them during one or two years probably things would settle down and the rules would become almost common form.
    Sir F. BANBURY: You mean that they would not require alteration, not that they should not be altered?
    Mr. FISHER: That is so.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not like the proposal to lay the Orders in Council on the Table, but I am willing to accede to it. Of course, it would be done in the usual way because there are rules which are so contrived that they are of no use at all. I understand it will be provided that they shall be laid upon the Table of the House, and, if not objected to within thirty days during the time that the House is sitting, they shall continue in force. I do not object to their being in force during the thirty days, provided the House is sitting and there is power to deal with them. I remember on one occasion the present Lord Stuart Wortley telling me that he was going to raise a matter, and I said I thought he was not, and he did not. We do not want anything of that kind, and I am quite sure the Home Secretary does not mean that. I will, however, consent if the right hon. Gentleman will agree to leave out the words
    "and alter the rules contained in the First Schedule to this Act for the purpose of carrying this Act into full effect or for carrying into effect any Act for the time being in force amending or affecting this Act."
    Those words are unnecessary. As the right hon. Gentleman himself said, it is enacting now that we shall do something ten or twenty years hence in regard to another Act. The disadvantage of that has been shown by the fact that the Act of 1888, without anyone in the House
    462
    knowing it, does apply to the local government part of this Bill. I should like to point out this fact: I have noticed it influences them a good deal in the decisions to which they come. There has not been a single Member who has spoken upon this Amendment who has not endorsed it and thought an alteration should be made. Not a single Member on either side has thought these words were right. I therefore propose to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment on the understanding that the Home Secretary has just given us and then to move to leave out the words "or for carrying into effect any Act for the time being in force amending or affecting this Act."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Amendment the right hon. Baronet mentions is already on the Paper in the name of another Member.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to move to leave out the words "and any fees to be taken in connection therewith."
    The necessity for this Amendment is largely removed by the concession made by the Home Secretary, namely that Orders in Council shall be placed before the House for a certain number of days and the House will have an opportunity of discussing them if necessary. But I desire to move this in order that the Home Secretary may tell us what class of fees are referred to and on what occasions they will be charged. I think the Committee realises that the power to impose charges on the people of the country ought not to be conferred by Order in Council,' and that is an extra argument for laying the Orders in Council on the Table for discussion if necessary.
    Sir G. CAVE: In such matters as these fees will be charged for a copy of the register or of part of the register for a form of claim or for a form of objection. They are small matters, but it is not desirable that discretion should be allowed locally. It is better to lay them down for the whole country, so that the amount to be charged may be reasonable. It is quite usual to have a scale of fees settled by some authority or other, and we propose to put the fees in the Regulations which are to be made.
    Mr. RENDALL: Does that mean that if an ordinary person wants to make a claim he has to pay a fee?
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out the words "or for carrying into effect any Act for the time being in force amending or affecting this Act."
    We do not think it is right that we should legislate now for some Act which may come into force ten or twenty years hence. These words provide that an Order in Council may be put into effect for the purpose of carrying out an Act which may be passed by a future Parliament, called into being by a different electorate, and perhaps not elected for many years to come.
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not resist this Amendment from obstinacy at all, but as a matter of business convenience. Take the point I made just now. Suppose you had an Act amending this Act in one respect—for instance, altering the period of qualification from six months to three. You would not put in that amending Act a fresh provision for making rules and all the rest of it. You would merely alter the six to three. Then you would get a sort of compound Act composed of the present Bill and the new amending Act, and you want to make your rules so as to give effect to the two together. That is why we have in this Bill, as in other Statutes, the power to make rules for giving effect not only to the principal Act, but to any amending Act. It is common-sense, and I see no reason whatever why the words should not be allowed to stand.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I cannot quite see now why, when this new Act is introduced, power should not be taken in it to amend the Schedule. You are going to have a Bill and discuss it in Parliament. What does it matter whether there is another Clause in it or not? I am very sorry the Home Secretary will not accept this Amendment, especially as it has been supported by every Member who has spoken. It really looks as if any Amendment moved from his own side of the House is always to be refused. Last night an Amendment was accepted in the dinner hour, and I find that one Member was strongly against it, and another objected to it being taken at that time. But it was accepted because five or six Members spoke in favour of it. This afternoon, when every Member who has spoken has been in favour of making the alteration, the Home Secretary refuses it.
    Colonel GREIG: I have not spoken because I thought it would only lengthen the discussion. I agree entirely with the
    464
    position taken up by the Home Secretary. A little experience in drafting Acts of Parliament has led me to believe that he has taken the correct view. What would happen when a small point has to be amended in a big Statute? Just what the Home Secretary says. The new Statute would do it in this way: The amending Act would probably say, "this Act and the former Act shall be read together as one Act." No draughtsman would ever think of putting into that Act a fresh power of making or adjusting Orders in Council. It would never occur to him to do it, because if the new Act has to be read with the old Act any experienced draughtsman would think that is all that is wanted. It would be perfectly correct to do it in that way. It is the usual way to carry on the earlier power and issue Orders in Council to amend the Regulations from time to time. Hon. Members do not seem to have realised that these Orders in Council are not to be made to alter the rule in the First Schedule simply. There are other words there which control the whole of it for the purpose of carrying this Act into effect. I am not at all sure that if an Order in Council were issued which did not carry the Act into effect on a fair construction of the whole Statute, you could not get a prohibition to restrain the operation of the Order in Council. I imagine there is some power in the High Court to restrain the operation of an Order in Council which is obviously in contravention of the effect of the Act. I think the Home Secretary is perfectly correct.
    Sir F. BANBURY: We were not dealing with the First Schedule for the purpose of carrying the Act into full effect. We are dealing with the question whether we shall have something in this Act with regard to another Act which is not in force, and we do not know whether it will ever be in force. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says the proper way for the professional draughtsman is to say that this particular Act is to be read with some other Act. That is legislation by reference, which the whole House for several years past has deprecated. No doubt it is a very good thing from the point of the draughtsman, but it is not a good thing from the point of view of the House, We do not want to have to look up all sorts of Acts to find out what is in them and what is not. Far and away the simpler and better plan, if not for the Government for Members generally, is to

    465
    deal with all the details of the Bill in the Bill itself and not in a way which necessitates the spending of hours and days looking up previous Statutes.
    Colonel GREIG: If the right hon. Baronet is correct, you would have to repeat the whole of the original Statute in the amending Statute.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Why not?
    Mr. MACMASTER: With respect to my right hon. Friend, this is not legislation by reference. Legislation by reference contemplates a case in which you refer in an existing Statute to some previous Statute. In this case we have recognised already that by Order in Council the rules may be changed to carry this Act into effect, and all that is proposed here is that if this Act should be amended in future there should be power to make an Order in Council to carry into effect the amending Act.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Appeals.)
    (1) An appeal shall lie to the County Court, as defined by rules of Court, from any decision of the registration officer on any point of law material to his action in refusing to place or placing any name on the register or in any part of the register, or refusing to place or placing any mark against any name in the register, and rules of Court shall be made for the purpose of determining the procedure on any such appeals and for applying and adapting thereto any enactments relating to County Courts and the procedure therein.
    (2) There shall be no appeol against any decision of the registration officer upon a question of fact only or upon the admissibility or effect of any evidence or admission adduced or made in any case to establish any matter of fact only.
    (3) An appeal shall lie from any decision of the County Court of any such appeal from the registration officer in accordance with rules of the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeal, but no appeal shall lie from the decision of the Court of Appeal.
    (4) The right of voting of any person whose name is for the time being en the register shall not be prejudiced by any appeal pending under this Section, and
    466
    any vote given in pursuance of that right shall be as good as if no appeal were pending, and shall not be affected by the subsequent decision of the appeal.
    (5) Notice shall be sent to the registration officer in manner provided by rules of Court of the decision of the County Court or of the Court of Appeal on any appeal under this Section, and the registration officer shall make such alterations in the electors' lists or register as may be required to give effect to the decision.
    (6) On any appeal under this Section the registration officer shall be deemed to be a party to the proceedings.
    (7) If the Lord Chancellor is satisfied on the representation of the judge of any County Court that the judge is unable, owing to the necessity of dealing with appeals under this Act, to transact the business of the Court with proper dispatch, the Lord Chancellor may appoint a barrister of at least seven years' standing to act as assistant judge for such time as the Lord Chancellor may direct, and subject to any conditions which he may impose.
    Any assistant judge so appointed shall have' ail the powers and privileges and may perform any of the duties of the judge, whether under this Act or otherwise, to whom he has been appointed assistant.
    An assistant judge shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament such remuneration and travelling allowances as may be allowed by the Treasury.
    In the application of this provision to a County Court district the whole of which is within the Duchy of Lancaster, the Chancellor of the Duchy shall be substituted for the Lord Chancellor.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I have an Amendment to substitute "revising barrister" for "County Court."
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman was not here when we had a discussion on a previous Clause on an Amendment moved by the; right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) on the understanding that we disposed of it at that stage.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I understood that that discussion was upon the question of a barrister revising the list of voters. This is a question of appeal. The question is who is to be the appeal tribunal,

    467
    whether it is to be a County Court or a different tribunal. The other question was who should be responsible for the revision of the lists. It had nothing to do with questions of law or of fact.
    The CHAIRMAN: I actually drew attention to the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment on this Clause, as the better place of raising the question. The Committee took the view that it was better to raise it at the point at which the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Brigadier-General Croft) had an Amendment, and I put the point clearly before the Committee that the decision disposed of the question of the revising barrister altogether.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I had that Amendment down as well.
    The CHAIRMAN: I know, but I cannot allow it a second time.
    Colonel SANDERS: Are not these two different questions? The question that was raised on Clause 11 was whether the revising barrister should take the place of what I may call the Court of First Instance, instead of the registration officer. The question which my hon. and learned Friend wants to raise is whether the revising barrister should take the place of the County Court as a Court of appeal. Surely these are quite different questions? The first question could only be raised on Clause 11, and the second question could only be raised on Clause 12.
    Sir F. BANBURY: My object in moving the Amendment was, and I said it, several times, that the registration officer should be checked. I said, in reply to the hon. Member for Newington, that I did not want to set up a revising barrister's Court, but that my object was to provide some power of revision by a revising officer, and that we should decide later on who that revising officer should be. It did not necessarily follow that he should be a revising barrister. If the hon. and learned Member wants to continue that discussion he would be out of order, but if he wants to propose as an Amendment that, instead of the County Court being the Court of appeal, a revising barrister should perform that function. I submit that that would be in order.
    Mr. NIELD: I should like to call attention to the fact that these are wholly different conditions. You are now, by your ruling, Mr. Whitley, preventing an Amendment being moved upon which it would be relevant to inform you of the condition of business in the County Courts and the impossibility of the County Court undertaking this work. This is a totally different function from that which was proposed in Clause 11. In that case, we were saying that the revising barrister could be readily accessible in the way that he has hitherto been to revise questions of fact or questions of law. That is one thing, but to have an appeal from the action of the registration officer, which we all hope would be a final appeal, is a very different thing, and I do urge you to consider whether or not the ultimate tribunal of appeal should not be some person other than a permanent member of the judicial staff, who, as a rule, is hopelessly overworked at the present time. I do ask you to allow the Amendment to be moved.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: We determined the question of the revising barrister's Court at an earlier stage. Surely if revising barristers are now introduced into this Bill by way of amendment it inferentially carries with it the right to set up a revising barrister's Court. That would be to allow a repetition of something which we have already determined.
    The CHAIRMAN: It is a pity the hon. and learned Gentlemen who have spoken were not here at the time when this matter was decided. I distinctly drew attention to this Amendment on Clause 12 and I stated that my preference was for the matter being raised there and it was only in deference to the views expressed by the Committee that I consented to the other Amendment being discussed on Clause 11, clearly stating that it would dispose of the question. Therefore, if I permit debate on the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment now it must be very limited because we had a long debate on the question on Clause 11 and came to a decision upon it.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I distinctly remember that you said exactly what you have just stated, but I may point out that you asked for a definite official to be put in, and the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) said he

    469
    understood the hon. and learned Gentler man (Mr. Rawlinson) had got an Amendment lower down on the Paper raising the question of the revising officer, and he thought it was in connection with Clause 11 and suggested that revising barrister should be put in. I did not put in revising barrister, I put in revising officer. The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs was wrong, because it now turns out that my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment did not apply to Clause 11 in the sense that I moved the Amendment to that Clause, but to Clause 12 in a totally different sense, that is, whether the County Court which did not come into my Amendment at all should be the Court of appeal or some other Court.
    Sir G. CAVE: Perhaps it may assist if I state how the matter occurs to me. We are all agreed in regard to what you said and the action you took, but it is true that as the discussion went on it limited itself to the point whether in the preliminary act of framing the register the registration officer should be checked by someone before the register was completed. This is a different point, because it arises when the register is complete, the point being whether the appeal, so far as the registration is concerned, should be to the County Court or elsewhere. I am not in the least unwilling to meet the point in discussion and I do not press you not to put this Amendment to the Committee.
    The CHAIRMAN: If I allow this Amendment I must ask the Committee not to take advantage of it in view of what was done on the previous Clause.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (I), to leave out the words "the County Court, as defined by rules of Court," and to insert instead thereof the words "a revising barrister."
    I had an Amendment to the previous Clause which was dealt with. That suggestion, which failed, was that there should be a revision Court and that the duty under the existing state of affairs should continue and that there should be a revising barrister responsible for the list and not the registration officer set up by this Bill. That has been disposed of, and I will not refer to it except to explain that it is not the Amendment I am moving now. Assuming that the registration officer is the sole person responsible for the revision of the list, there is by the
    470
    Bill an appeal on certain points of law. It is possible that in addition to that there B may be an appeal on certain points of fact. I do not know whether the Government I have definitely pledged themselves to that. I have an Amendment on the point lower? down on the Paper, and it may be that j the Government have indicated they will s consider it favourably. As the Bill stands now, apart from any Government promise, there is to be an appeal on points of law to a tribunal—the County Court My Amendment is that there should be an appeal to a revising barrister. The reasons for that are twofold. First of all, the revising barrister is accustomed to deal with points of law in connection with the electoral lists. He has been accustomed to deal with them, and has had considerable experience in that way. Moreover, he is a person quite independent of the county in which the revision takes place; I he is a person who comes down from London, who does not live in the district, and practically has nothing to do with the district, and who comes down to deal with the particular points which may arise. It is suggested that the County Court should have the decision upon these matters. In my younger days I was very largely in the County Courts. Whatever our general view of the County Courts may be, hon. Members will probably agree in this that those Courts have a considerable amount of work to do at the present time. And certainly they have had no practice in this particular branch of law. A County Court judge may have been sitting for twenty, thirty, or forty years, and may never have had to deal with a case affecting electoral law. He has many other important duties to perform. It is proposed to throw this large amount of additional work on to a man who is bound practically to live in the district and who has had very, little experience in dealing with questions of electoral law. That there will be difficulty in many cases in a County Court dealing with these questions of law, and possibly of fact also, is shown by the Bill, because it takes power to appoint additional County Court judges for the purpose. It is far better to allow people who are dong the work at the present time to continue to do it and to deal with these points of law and, if necessary, point of fact, in the branch of law with which they are familiar. I must apologise to the House for not being in my place when the question was discussed on Clause 11. On the whole I am not irregular in my attend-

    471
    ance, and I took a great deal of trouble to ascertain how matters would stand in regard to this Bill before I made an appointment for to-day. I understood, in answer to a question, that the Finance Bill would be taken and I made arrangements for an appointment at 4 o'clock this afternoon, but I should have put that off if I had known on Saturday. It was not until Monday that I had any idea that this Committee was to sit to-day. I intended no discourtesy to the Committee by not attending in my place to move my Amendment.
    Sir W. BULL: The whole idea of the Conference was to simplify, as far as possible, the putting of people on the register and the idea was to sweep away the revising barristers Court altogether. The Conference thought that we had so simplified the machinery that there would not be more than two or three cases each year to go for appeal. There will not be all the complicated cases that hitherto had been brought up before the revising barrister. We consider that the whole thing would become very largely automatic after the first two or three registers and that a person could get on the register almost as easily as you get on the rate book, if you are entitled. Upon the whole we felt that the thing would be very simple and that is why we referred points of law to the County Court rather than points of fact. We thought it would save time and machinery if the responsible officials dealt primarily with questions of fact. The reason why the County Court was put in was so that there should be a right of appeal, if necessary, to a higher Court on any important question of fact. The matter was very carefully considered, and I hope that it will not be altered.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: My recollection of what occurred at the Speaker's Conference agrees with that of the hon. Member for Hammersmith. If this Amendment is carried revising barristers will practically have to be appointed for all constituencies. If that occurs, and the work falls off, as it certainly will under the simplification which this Bill will effect, then I suppose that the question of compensation will arise. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] Well, I thought it might. This is an excellent Amendment from the point of view of the legal profession. I suppose that there would be an appeal from the barrister's Court, and to whom should that appeal
    472
    go? It is far better that the comparatively few cases of appeal should go straight to the Court to determine. The hon. Member overlooked the fact that if there is great pressure on the County Court provision is taken to meet it by the power taken to appoint an assistant judge, who will probably be a revising barrister; but the advantage is that the appointment will not be made unless there is a pressure of work. If there is pressure of work, the assistant judge will be appointed only for the time being. As the work steadily declines, then the call will not be made upon the assistant judges to give assistance to the County Court judge. The Bill proposes the right thing, and I hope that it will be adhered to.
    Mr. NIELD: I am much surprised and gratified to hear the childlike faith of hon. Members with regard to the conditions of things under the County Court system. Suppose you have got power to appoint an assistant judge—a very doubtful power—it will have to be exercised all over the country. It is said that that would be a revising barrister under another name; but think of the other branch of the County Court work. I am afraid that hon. Members have had the good fortune to pass their lives away from contact with the County Court. Think what it means in the closely congested London districts. Take the County Court sitting at Clerkenwell, with the registrar and staff worked almost to death. I have known cases adjourned two or three days, after attendance all day in a County Court, waiting for them to come on, owing to the want of time, and it is not confined to the mere question of the judge's list. You have got the registrar and all the officials, and you have got to have special forms and special arrangements in order to deal with these cases which might arise. I wish that I could share the simple faith of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith in thinking that this is all so simple that it is going to work itself all right in a short time.
    Sir W. BULL: I have had a great deal of experience in County Courts.
    Mr. NIELD: My hon. Friend has generally arranged his County Court business so as to enable him to slip backwards and forwards to his office with no disarrangement of his general practice. Those of us who have had to kick our heels about

    473
    in the old days in the robing room and elsewhere, waiting hour after hour for these cases to come on, have known what congestion in the County Court means. Remember that the Legislature has from time to time put additional and very substantial work upon the County Court. For instance, all actions for under £100 must be brought into the County Court, unless with the risk of the penalty of having your costs considerably cut down. Then the Workmen's Compensation Act has thrown an enormous burden of work on the County Court. Remember that in country districts the County Court judge only sits once a month, and to ask him to sit oftener is to ask him to disarrange his whole circuit. Hon. Members do not realise the hard life of the County Court judge, the many difficulties which he has to encounter, the many jurisdictions which he has to exercise, and the hundred-and-one Statutes which I cannot call to mind at the moment, but in which duties of various kinds are imposed on the County Court, and in view of this I hope that the Committee will hesitate before putting further business on that already overworked tribunal. I would ask hon. Members to dismiss altogether from their minds anything that may be said about lawyers. Lawyers have done more to make laws properly than any other section of the community, and hasty legislation and imperfect drafting have been brought about very largely by those hon. Members who mean well, but who have always managed to complicate Bills, with the result that in the end they afford a good harvest to the profession.
    Sir G. CAVE: In order to meet the difficulty which has been referred to by my hon. and learned Friend, provision is made in the Sub-section of this Clause for the appointment of an assistant judge for such time as the Lord Chancellor may direct, who may perform any of the duties of the judge, whether under this Act or otherwise. Needless to say, I cannot accept this Amendment. It is part of the whole scheme of the Bill that the original work shall be done by the registration
    officer, and that then there shall be an appeal. If the Amendment is carried, I do not know what appeal there would be from the revising barrister, and then we should have to add other provisions.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: On the question of appeal there would be an appeal at present, I presume, from the County Court to the Court of Appeal, and then to the House of Lords. I do not imagine that that is any consolation to hon. Members. As far as the revising barrister is concerned, it is perfectly well known that the appeal can only be taken when he states a case for consideration. I hope that the Committee will not be influenced by the ingenious remarks by the hon. Member for Hammersmith as to what happened before the Conference. Does he really think that this Bill, now that we have had the advantage of discussing it in this House, will not raise very difficult questions of law indeed? Does he solemnly imagine that the franchise which we have enacted for women is a franchise which is so simple that anybody can say exactly what it makes a person entitled to? I have great respect for the legal knowledge of the hon. Member, but even a humble person like myself might ask him many conundrums as to what we have done here as regards woman suffrage which he would have great difficulty in answering, and which would cause the greatest possible difficulty to a less competent lawyer like myself. This is not one of those questions which go to the bedrock of the Conference. The revising barrister is not, I am sorry to say, a permanent official. He is appointed annually. If this Bill passes, he will not be entitled to compensation. If my Amendment is carried, his successors or he will not be entitled to compensation if for any reason the work ends. Therefore, I press the Committee very strongly to accept this Amendment.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 18.

    Division No. 63.]

    AYES.

    [6.59 p.m.

    Adamson, William

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Black, Sir Arthur W.

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Barran, Sir Rowland Hunt (Leeds, N.)

    Bliss, Joseph

    Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

    Barton, Sir William

    Boland, John Plus

    Allan, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Bockett, Hon, Gervase

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Brookes, Warwick

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Barnett, Captain R. W.

    Bird, Alfred

    Bull, Sir William James

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Roes, G. C. (Carnarvon, Arlon)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hudson, Walter

    Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Jacobean, Thomas Owen

    Randall Athelstan

    Crawley, Rt. Hon. Sir F. (Prestwich)

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Johnston, Sir Christopher

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Roberts Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Clough, William

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Jowett, F. W.

    Rowlands, James

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Joyce, Michael

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Rutherford, Sir John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

    King, Joseph

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool W. Derby)

    Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Cowan, Sir W. H.

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Craig, Col. James (Down, E.)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Henry Page

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

    Locker-Lampion, G. (Salisbury)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Seely, Lt.-Col. Sir C. H. (Mansfield)

    Currie, George W.

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Shaw, Hon. A.

    Dairymple, Hon. H. H.

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Falk. B'ghs)

    Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

    Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    M'Kean, John

    Starkey, John B.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Macmaster, Donald

    Stewart, Gershom

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald

    Doris, William

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Sutton, John E.

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Malcolm, Ian

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Field, William

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Thompson, Rt. Hon. R. (Belfast, N.)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Meux, Hon. Sir Hedworth

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Millar, James Duncan

    Tickler, T. G.

    Fleming, Sir John

    Molloy, Michael

    Tootill, Robert

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Morrell, Philip

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Gilbert, J. D.

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Wason, Right Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Watson, John Bertrand

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Nuttall, Harry

    Wedgwood, Lt.-Commander Josiah

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

    Orde-Powiett, Hon. W. G. A.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Whitty, Patrick Joseph

    Hackett, John

    Parkes, Sir Edward E.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Hanson, Charles Augustin

    Parrott, Sir James Edward

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Partington, Oswald

    Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

    Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

    Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Haslam, Lewis

    Philipps, Gen. Sir Ivor (Southampton)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Ponsonby Arthur A. W. H.

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Pratt, J. W.

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Younger, Sir George

    Hinds, John

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    TELLERS FOR THE AVES—Mr.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Beck and Mr. J. Hops

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Samuels, Arthur W.

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

    Fell, Arthur

    Shortt, Edward

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmoed

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Swift, Rigby

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Boyton, J.

    Hunt, Major Rowland

    Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

    Nield, Herbert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Rawlinson and Colonel Gretton

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "on any point of law material to his action in."
    The effect of the omission of these words will be to withdraw the limitation on the class of cases which can be appealed against in the County Court to merely questions of law, and to extend appeals to questions of fact also. I
    476
    understand that in a discussion which took place earlier in the afternoon the Home Secretary gave some intimation that he would be prepared to consider an Amendment on the lines I suggest. This limitation, on the extent to which appeals can be brought from the registration officer, is introduced into this Bill without the direct recommendation of the Conference. The resolution of the Conference

    477
    was that an appeal from the decision of the registration officer shall lie with the County Court. I do not know what the views of every member of the Conference on the matter may be, but my own opinion was very strongly that the recommendation included all appeals both of law and fact. Indeed, personally, I should not have assented to anything short of that, because I think myself that it would be a mistake for the Committee to leave the registration officer as the final judge in every case. The primary duty of the registration officer is to prepare the list for which he is responsible, and it is his business to see that the various objectors, whether they are party agents or party individuals, appear and argue the points. It appears to me to be inexpedient and not quite fair to the registration officer himself that he should have to adjudicate on what is practically his own work. The idea of the Conference, and I think I may take it that it is the idea of the Committee also, was that the great bulk of the work would fall upon the registration officer, and I agree with the hon. Member who spoke just now in thinking that in a very short time, perhaps not at next election, but soon after that, the registration officers will have got through a great mass of work to the perfect satisfaction of the public, and that after a time there would be very few cases for appeal. Appeals will go to the County Court, and there will be a certain amount of responsibility In bringing an appeal at all. Of course, it would only be in a case where the agent or individual thought he had a very good chance of success that an appeal against the decision of the person who is in charge of this business of the revision of the list as a whole, would be made. At the same time, I must say that in protection of the registration officer himself as well as the security of the public, there should be an opportunity of appealing, both on questions of law and of fact, to the County Court judge or to the deputy judge who may be appointed for this purpose. That is why I propose this Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: So far as I can see, full effect is given to the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, reading the words in their wide sense, by allowing an appeal to be made from any decision of the registration officer who places or refuses to place any name on the register. I am disposed to think with my right hon. Friend, however, that in a very short time, after a
    478
    few registration appeals have been heard, the law will be settled, and appeals afterwards will be very few indeed. With that in view, I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. GILBERT: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words "but no fees shall be payable to the County Court with respect to such appeal."
    My object in putting down this Amendment is that appeals made to the County Court shall be made as cheaply as possible, and shall not be surcharged with ideal charges, and I hope the Home Secretary will see his way to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. H. P. HARRIS: Before the Home Secretary answers, may I point out that I have an Amendment upon the Paper to a similar effect though I think it is preferable to that of the hon. Gentleman's. It is that the rules of Court shall provide that no Court fees shall be charged in the case of any such appeal, and that no costs shall be allowed to any party, but that the Court in its discretion may allow costs on the grounds that the action of any party to the proceedings was frivolous or vexatious. There are no Court fees in the cases before the revising barrister. The Amendment has been drawn to continue that practice. There may be cases of frivolous or vexatious appeals and the Amendment gives the Court discretion in such cases.
    Mr. GILBERT: I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment in favour of that of the hon. Gentleman.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. H. P. HARRIS: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words, "The rules of Court so made shall provide that no Court fees shall be charged in the case of any such appeal and that no costs shall be allowed to any party, but that the Court in its discretion-may allow costs on the grounds that the action of any party to the proceedings was frivolous or vexatious." I have already explained to the Committee the meaning and purpose of this Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: As the Committee knows very well, there are no costs in the proceedings before the registration officer.

    479
    When you propose an appeal from that officer I do not think it is desirable to go so far as that We have just accepted an Amendment which allows appeals on questions of fact or law, and that being so, I think there ought to be some check. The costs of the County Court are quite moderate, and those who appeal ought to be prepared to pay the small fees.
    Mr. GILBERT: Would the Home Secretary bring up a list of the fees?
    Sir G. CAVE: Those are supplied by the County Court authorities.
    Mr. NIELD: I am glad to hear the reply of the Home Secretary. It is perfectly easy by the scale to at once determine the quantum of the costs. I should like to remind hon. Gentlemen that there is an important Department of the Government —namely, the Treasury—and there is one thing which I wonder has never attracted the attention of this House, and that is, that the Treasury has always made the County Court a paying one. The scale of fees has been such as to make it pay its own way. Therefore I think the Home Secretary, if he has a conference with the Treasury will be fortified in his opinion. I think it would be very unwise to provide that no legal costs should be paid and that no fees should be chargeable.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: The reason why this Amendment has been put down is in order to protect the voter from being subjected to anything like serious charges in making an appeal against the decision of the registration officer. The case is vastly different from that where two litigants go into Court over some personal interest. The case we have in mind is, say, that of a man who has been overlooked by the registration officer, or who thinks that a wrong decision has been given or a mistake made, and where the man thinks that he is entitled to his full rights of citizenship. What we want to be sure of— and I think we ought to have some information on the point—is that if there are to be fees, they should be of the lowest possible kind, which, while they will insure that persons will not make vexatious claims, will not at the same time prevent those who have legitimate claims from going to the County Court for protection, and that they will not thereby be mulcted.
    Mr. DICKINSON: No doubt these appeals will be brought by people who are simply claiming civil rights and who are not claiming anything against any individual or damages or anything of the kind. I must say I think it is rather unwise to put upon a person who is making a claim of the kind the obligation of paying some money first. I am afraid that this will really result in the party agents and party funds having to find the money, and I think that would be most disadvantageous. I do not want a system under which, in order to get ordinary civil rights, some party has got to provide the money. That is a thing which has happened already and is very detrimental in many cases. I regret very much that this embargo should be put upon appeal, as it will necessarily result either in the poor man not getting his rights or in obliging him to go to the party fund in order to obtain them.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Probably nine out of ten cases will be appeals against the refusal of the registration officer to put the name on the list. It does seem rather a hardship that the man who feels he has been deprived of his rights as a citizen should have to pay on appeal, while he has not to pay in the case of the refusal before the revising barrister. I feel sure with the simplification of the law and the abolition of the old Acts and a franchise qualification of mere residents' residence and mere occupation that the number of occasions for appeal will be reduced, but I think that those who have grounds for appeal ought not to be penalised.
    Sir W. BULL: An hon. Member spoke just now of the County Court being overcrowded with this work. I think if these appeals were allowed without fee of any kind they certainly would be overcrowded if anybody were able to go freely to the Court without any cost to himself. I strongly hope that the Home Secretary will not give way on this question. If the man is entitled to a vote he gets his costs.
    Colonel GREIG: What would be the effect if these appeals were free? We would have the party agents lodging objections against everybody, and the result would be that you would have every poor man who wants to get on the register harried by free litigation on the part of the party agents.
    Mr. BUTCHER: May I ask are there any provisions in the county court rules to enable a man to sue in forma pauperis?

    481
    My reason for asking is this. Under the new franchise I cannot but think, especially with the enormous number of new voters who will be entitled to go on the register, that there may be a considerable number of omissions of persons entitled to be registered. The majority of people so omitted I take it will be poor people, and I think it would be a real hardship if they were prevented from going to the proper tribunal owing to fees being exacted which they might not be able to pay. Under the new procedure I suppose that the man who is improperly left off the register would have to go to the County Court. Therefore it would really be unreasonable that he should be prevented from asserting his rights owing to the difficulty of fees.
    Sir G. CAVE: The man himself can go to the County Court and state his rights.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Would he not have to pay court fees?
    Colonel GRETTON: There is one consideration which I think has mot been noticed. We are setting up a new method of registration and great changes in the existing system, and no doubt difficulties and difficult questions will arise which will have to be decided. It would be a hardship, especially upon poor persons, if they have to go to Court and have those cases decided at their instance at first, since they would be the leading cases which would guide registration officers as to the way in which they were to act as to putting people on or off the register. Perhaps something might be, done in order to meet that point to allow the appeals during the first twelve months free of cost or something of that sort, in order to meet the difficulty of the leading cases and of the interpretation of this new Act as known by the practices and decisions of the County Court and possibly of the Court of Appeal. That is a matter which might be considered at a later stage. Reference has been made to the possibility of recourse to party agents in this matter. Perhaps it is a little ungenerous of Members of this House to turn round, after they have successfully emerged from an election and landed in this House, and abuse the party agents. All of us have had to fight elections and we had to have election agents, and very few of us perhaps would have been elected but for the services of the party agent. Parties will have to continue to exist in one form or another, and it seems to me a little un-
    482
    generous to turn round on the party agents and attack them universally as some hon. Members have done.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: The person concerned will have had his trial before the registration officer, and surely you cannot call it c, hardship in the case of the appeal to have this provision. As one of our greatest judges remarked, cheap law is like cheap gin, a thing people are better without.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. GILBERT: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), after the word "appeal" ["an appeal shall lie"], to insert the words "on any point of law."
    My desire is merely to maintain the law as it at present stands.
    Sir G. CAVE: I am not quite sure whether, as a matter of grammar, the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman ought not to come in after the word "lie" ["an appeal shall lie from any decision"]. I am quite prepared to accept the words as they stand.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. DICKINSON: At the end of Sub-section (6) to insert the words "and all expenses properly incurred by him, including any costs which he may be ordered to pay to the appellant in any appeal, shall be allowed to him as part of the expenses of the revision of the list to which the appeal relates."
    Mr. DICKINSON: I rather fancy the object of my Amendment is covered by a Government Amendment on Clause 13. If the words of the Government Amendment do not meet the point, perhaps the Government will amend it at that stage?
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. H. P. HARRIS: I beg to move, at the end of Subsection (6), to insert the following Sub-section:
    "(7) Where in the administrative county of London a registration area is situate in more than one County Court district, appeals arising in respect of that area shall be taken to the County Court for the district in which the greater part of such registration area is situate."
    Sir G. CAVE: The first words of Subsection (1) are, "an appeal shall lie to the County Court as defined by rules of Court." Therefore, the rules in the case put by my hon. Friend which must specify in which County Court the appeal must be brought.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (7), after the word "Treasury" ["allowed by the Treasury"], to insert the words "No assistant judge so appointed shall for eighteen months from the time of his appointment be eligible to serve in Parliament for any constituency which is within the area or jurisdiction of the County Court for which he is so appointed."
    I desire that the same rule that applies to revising barristers shall apply to assistant judges.
    Sir G. CAVE: I hope this Amendment is unnecessary. What may happen under Scottish law—
    Sir G. YOUNGER: We do not have revising barristers in Scotland.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. BUTCHER: I should like to deal for a few moments with the position of revising barristers—
    The CHAIRMAN: I have noted four hon. and learned Gentlemen in the same position. They cannot reverse our procedure, and go back upon a point which we have already had a full discussion.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I was not going to raise the question, which has already been settled. I was going to refer to Sub-section (7), which says that "the Lord Chancellor may appoint a barrister of at least seven years' standing to act as assistant judge." What I should like to ask the Home Secretary is whether it would be possible to make any representations to the Lord Chancellor as to the advisability of appointing revising barristers to posts of this sort who have had a large experience for a number of years. I am aware that it is in the discretion of the Lord Chancellor, and that that discretion cannot be interfered with; but I should like to know whether it would not be possible that some indication might be given that persons who have acquired that particular experience
    484
    should, if possible, be selected for the post of assistant judge. If it is not possible, then it might be desirable at a later stage, on Report, to put a Clause or a paragraph in the Sub-section to the effect that their claims should be given proper consideration in making these appointments. Before, however, I consider the probability of making any-such suggestion on Report, I should like to know from the Home Secretary whether it would be possible to suggest to the Lord Chancellor, in some way or another that would carry official weight, that these are persons whose cases are undoubtedly very hard cases, and that they should be given some special consideration in making these appointments.
    Sir G. CAVE: Revising barristers have done good work for a great number of years. I am afraid, under this Bill, that work will come to an end. But I shall be exceedingly glad to ask the Lord Chancellor to bear them in mind in making these appointments, and to endeavour so far as he can to give consideration to the fact that these gentlemen are no longer employed. I myself am quite prepared to say that I will make that representation to the Lord Chancellor, and I have no doubt he will bear it in mind.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 13.—(Expenses of Registration.)
    (1) Any expenses properly incurred by any registration officer in the performtion (including all proper and reasonabletion (including all proper and reasonable charges for trouble, care and attention in the performance of those duties), shall be paid by the council whose clerk the registration officer is, subject in cases where the registration area is not coterminous with or wholly contained in the area of that council to such contributions by the council of any other county or borough as the Local Government Board may direct.
    Any such expenses shall be paid in the case of the council of a county out of the county fund, and if the case requires as expenses for special county purposes, and in the case of a council of a borough out of the borough fund or borough rate, or, where there is no borough fund or borough rate, out of the fund or rate out of which the ordinary expenses of the council of the borough are paid.
    (2) Any fees or other sum received by the registration officer in respect of his duties as such officer shall be accounted for by that officer and paid to the credit of the fund or rate out of which the expenses of that officer are paid.
    (3) There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to the council of any county or borough in aid of the fund or rate out of which any registration expenses are paid by the council, where those expenses do not exceed the maximum amount under a scale to be settled by the Treasury, one half of the amount so paid by the council, and where the expenses exceed that maximum, amount, one half of the maximum amount.
    The following Amendments stood on the Paper in the names of Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER and Mr. NIELD respectively: At the beginning of Sub-section (1) insert the words, "The registration officer shall be remunerated for his trouble, care, and attention in the performance of his duties in relation to registration out of moneys provided by Parliament according to a scale to be settled by the Treasury and"; in Sub-section (1), after the word "officer" ["registration officer"], to insert the words "or deputy registration officer if appointed."
    The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment is out of order as it proposes a money charge, and the second Amendment is covered by Clause 10.
    Mr. NIELD: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "including" [" including all proper and reasonable charges"], to insert the words, "rent of offices, establishment expenses, salaries of staff, and."
    I think this Amendment is necessary, and I hope the Home Secretary will see his way to accept it Take my own county. It is utterly preposterous that a county should do the work which this Bill puts upon it without taking perfectly new offices, new staff, and so on, and I think I shall be able to show at the proper time, on Report, that the work will require the appointment of an ad hoc officer to do it. It will illustrate what I have to say if I tell the Committee of the effect of Parliament throwing additional duties on the county council with which I am connected. The palatial buildings of the county council on the other side of Parliament Square were only opened at
    486
    the end of 1914, and are now so full of the various officials and staff which have been found necessary by reason of the action of Parliament that to provide another room, however small, for a registration officer is an utter impossibility. That county, with its teeming population, is a county which has an enormous urban population; therefore the work will be terrific. Therefore I do think that power should be given as suggested in the Amendment. The provision required is not at present in the Bill, and unless it is to be ensured there will be no adequate means of meeting the expenses.
    Sir G. CAVE: The point which the hon. and learned Gentleman has put is entirely covered by the words of the Clause which refer to any expenses properly incurred. If we were to specify certain expenses it might possibly throw doubt on the legitimacy of other expenses. I hope my hon. and learned Friend is satisfied.
    Mr. NIELD: Having got the matter on the "note," so to speak, I am willing to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "duties" [" performance of those duties"], insert the words "and any costs incurred by him as party to an appeal."—[Sir G. Cave.]
    Colonel SANDERS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "shall" ["shall be paid"], to insert the words "be submitted to and so far as approved shall."
    This gives the county council the power of audit over its clerk. The Bill says that anything the registration officer shall pay shall be paid by the county council These words will make it read "shall be submitted to and so far as approved shall be paid by the council." Surely the county council must have some right of looking into the expenses, which the registratoin officer sends in.
    Sir G. CAVE: I follow that, but it wants a little consideration because, of course, the effect is that if the registration officer incurs expenses which the county council do not approve he has to bear them himself. I think there is a case to be made out for the possibility that this may happen—the county authority may pay all the expenses that are brought before them and then go

    487
    to the Treasury and ask for half, and the Treasury may cut down the half, so that in the end more than half the costs will be placed on the local authority. I think that ought to be avoided, but it is a matter that requires consideration, and I will Bea whether words that can be accepted can be put down on the Report stage.
    Colonel SANDERS: That is not entirely the point. The council must have some check on their clerk's expenditure, to see that the scale on which he is running his registration is reasonable.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I hope the Home Secretary will not too rapidly make up his mind about this particular point. It is a rather difficult one, and personally I think the proper course is to treat the thing as a national business. The Treasury is the responsible authority, and if this is mixed up by bringing in the local authority I am certain you will get great complications. The clerk of the council, as I understand it, is in this question of registration to act as an independent officer. I think it is rather important to maintain that. He acts as an independent officer. The cost of his work is to be met half out of the Imperial Treasury and half out of the local treasury, and the duty of seeing that that expenditure is properly incurred, I think, should fall upon one and not upon two authorities. Of course, I do not quite know what is in the mind of the Government in regard to this particular question. Hitherto, as the Home Secretary is aware, the question of cost has come before the revising barrister. He was the authority to decide as to costs, and then the local authority had to pay whatever the sum might be. I have known some occasions when the local authority has been so parsimonious that the revising barrister has had to undertake an enormous amount of work in investigating claims which ought never to have been put before him, because the work was so badly done, and where he has announced that in future unless the work was better done he would not pass the accounts. There you have the authority of the revising barrister. I do not quite understand from the Home Secretary to whom the authority will be given in future. I take it that the authority may be the Treasury and that the Treasury would see that the work was economically and efficiently done, not only
    488
    from the point of view of the local authority, but from that of the Imperial authority. I only make these observations because I think the matter needs to be looked, at carefully from both points of view before we actually decide upon it.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: The real object is to see that there should be some taxing officer of some kind. There is, of course, the position in certain cases where certain things, such as expenses of returning officers, have to be taxed, and it seems to me that we have omitted that from the Bill. I hope the Home Secretary will deal with it in some form or other.
    Amendment negatived.
    Further Amendment made: In Subsection (2) after the word "officer" ["as such officer shall"], insert the words "other than sums paid to that officer in respect of his expenses under this Act."— [Sir G. Cave.]
    Mr. NIELD: In the absence of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Enfield (Major Newman), in whose name the Amendment stands on the Paper, I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "where those expenses do not exceed the maximum amount' under a scale to be settled by the Treasury."
    This is a matter which was the subject of the observations just made by the Home Secretary, who promised to consider the matter in relation to the scale of Treasury charges. The Clause as drawn will mean that the council concerned will only be reimbursed to the extent of half of the registration expenses if they do not exceed the Treasury scale. It is known from experience that the Treasury scale is notoriously inadequate, and it is not likely that this scale will be an exception to the rule. The policy of the Treasury has always been to pay as little as possible. The registration expenses may be perfectly reasonable and proper, and yet may exceed the scale. In those circumstances it would not be equitable for more than half of the expenses to fall on the rates. Expenses will vary according to the locality. In one area it may be possible to get printing done on terms which will not be possible in another area, and similarly other expenses which will fall under this scale might vary very considerably in accordance with the district in which they were incurred. A hard-and-fast scale prescribed by the Treasury may not, and

    489
    would not, therefore, in all cases be satisfactory. It is in the hope of getting the Home Secretary to make the complete statement to which he referred incidentally just now that I move this Amendment, and I hope that something may be done to meet what may be a very serious charge upon the county and borough rates.
    Sir G. CAVE: I think it would be impossible entirely to omit these words because we should then have no check at all on the amount of this expenditure. I think there ought to be a cheek on the amount of which the Treasury are going to pay half. On the other hand, I think there ought to be a check either by the local authority or some other authority on the amount to be charged to them. The object is that they should get a full half of whatever they pay. I think that point will be met by the Amendment we contemplate for the purpose of dealing with the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Colonel Sanders). When that is on the Paper I think it will be evident that what I agree would be a great injustice—namely, to charge the local authority with more than half of the ultimate expenses—may be avoided.
    Colonel SANDERS: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will put down an Amendment on the Committee stage or on Report?
    Sir G. CAVE: On Report
    Mr. H. SAMUEL: Might I draw the Home Secretary's attention to the fact that on the Report stage no alteration can be made which would have the effect of imposing an increased charge on the Treasury 1 Perhaps his Amendment would not do that.
    Sir G. CAVE: On the contrary, it would limit it.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I am sorry to intervene here, but I cannot help thinking that it is a mistake to try to work this matter on a scale previously settled by the Treasury. What you really want is a revising authority—that is, an approving authority—after the expenditure has been incurred. As a matter of fact, it is not only economy we want—I quite agree that economy is a very important thing—but we want efficiency, and in this particular question of the first revision there will be a
    490
    great deal of expenditure to be incurred in order to form a proper register. I do not know whether the authorities have really considered at all what the system will be, but the only system that is possible for the formation of a new register is a house-to-house canvass all over the country. That is a very expensive operation, and one of which many local authorities would fight shy. If the scale is settled beforehand, I think you will find it will be almost impossible to get the registration authorities to do the work properly. I think you want a regular system by which the Treasury shall pass the necessary expenditure. You have to trust somebody to do it, and to lay it down beforehand I believe will not be practicable. If possible, therefore, I should, like to leave out these words, and let the Home Secretary put in his words on the Report stage.
    Mr. NIELD: I am quite content with the Home Secretary's explanation, and I would ask leave to withdraw my Amendment on the understanding that we have his Amendment on Report.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. DICKINSON: There is one point that arises on the Clause. The proposal in it is that the whole of the expenditure shall be borne half by the State and half by the borough councils. Hitherto the expenses of registration have been borne equally by the borough councils and by the county councils?
    Colonel SANDERS: The State has paid the revising barristers.
    Mr. DICKINSON: Yes; the State has paid the revising barristers, but whatever the State has not paid has been divided between the borough councils and the county councils. The proposal now is to put the whole cost on the borough councils, and as the expenditure will undoubtedly be greater, at any rate at this first registration, I do not see the justice or the expediency of doing that. I do not know whether the Home Secretary's attention has been drawn to that point. I did not see it until I came to notice that one of the Acts repealed in the Schedule is the one which made this arrangement of the division between the counties and

    491
    the boroughs. I just mention this, but I should like the Home Secretary to consider it, possibly before the Report stage, or he might, perhaps, put down a new Clause.
    CLAUSE 14 (Special Provisions with Respect to Urban Districts and London) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKEB, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn"
    Adjourned accordingly at One minute lifter Eight o'clock.

WAR.
  WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
  WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
  NATIONAL SERVICE (LINGUIST).
  NATIONAL SERVICE (LINGUIST).
  BUSINESS MEN IN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (REMUNERATION).
  BUSINESS MEN IN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (REMUNERATION).
  SPIRITS.
  SPIRITS.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  MILK.
  MILK.
  BREAD.
  BREAD.
  SUGAR.
  SUGAR.
  MEAT PRICES.
  MEAT PRICES.
  "PROFITEERING."
  "PROFITEERING."
  POTATOES.
  POTATOES.
  NEW MACHINERY (MESSRS. DOBELL AND COMPANY).
  NEW MACHINERY (MESSRS. DOBELL AND COMPANY).
  BACON.
  BACON.
  LAND CULTIVATION (IRELAND).
  LAND CULTIVATION (IRELAND).
  POTATO SPRAYERS (SCOTLAND)
  POTATO SPRAYERS (SCOTLAND)
  UNEMPLOYMENT (DUBLIN).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (DUBLIN).
  IRISH REBELLION (COMPENSATION CLAIMS).
  IRISH REBELLION (COMPENSATION CLAIMS).
  IRISH CONVENTION.
  IRISH CONVENTION.
  ROYAL NAVAL VOLUNTEER RESERVE.
  ROYAL NAVAL VOLUNTEER RESERVE.
  CENSORSHIP.
  CENSORSHIP.
MILITARY SERVICE.
  RE-EXAMINATIONS.
  RE-EXAMINATIONS.
  CLASSIFICATION CARDS.
  CLASSIFICATION CARDS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CIVIL LIABILITIES (GRANT).
  CIVIL LIABILITIES (GRANT).
  MILITARY HOSPITALS (HOUSE KEEPERS).
  MILITARY HOSPITALS (HOUSE KEEPERS).
  NORTHUMBERLAND FUSILIERS (PROMOTION).
  NORTHUMBERLAND FUSILIERS (PROMOTION).
  DISCHARGED SOLDIER (BLACKPOOL).
  DISCHARGED SOLDIER (BLACKPOOL).
  KNOCKALOO CAMP (COMMANDANT).
  KNOCKALOO CAMP (COMMANDANT).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
MUNITIONS.
  COPPER SULPHATE.
  COPPER SULPHATE.
  SUBSTITUTES.
  SUBSTITUTES.
  BRITISH EAST AFRICA (LAND SETTLEMENT).
  BRITISH EAST AFRICA (LAND SETTLEMENT).
  ALIENS (EXPULSION).
  ALIENS (EXPULSION).
  JUVENILE OFFENDER.
  JUVENILE OFFENDER.
  PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.
  PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.
  INTERNED ALIEN.
  INTERNED ALIEN.
  NATURALISED ALIENS.
  NATURALISED ALIENS.
  NEUTRAL SHIPPING IN ALLIED PORTS.
  NEUTRAL SHIPPING IN ALLIED PORTS.
  PRISONERS OF WAR (TINS OF FOOD).
  PRISONERS OF WAR (TINS OF FOOD).
  Trustee Savings Bank (Dormant Accounts).
  Trustee Savings Bank (Dormant Accounts).
  Income Tax (Foreign Companies).
  Income Tax (Foreign Companies).
  Harbour Works, Burtonport.
  Harbour Works, Burtonport.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Infant Mortality (Ireland).
  Infant Mortality (Ireland).
  Dublin Metropolitan Police.
  Dublin Metropolitan Police.
  Housing (Lanarkshire).
  Housing (Lanarkshire).
  Boarded-out Children.
  Boarded-out Children.
  John M'Lean (Release).
  John M'Lean (Release).
  Civil Servants (Pensions).
  Civil Servants (Pensions).
  Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Tithe Bent Charge).
  Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Tithe Bent Charge).