Sitting of 28 January 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (no Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Marriages Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
Port Glasgow Water Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

ARMY.
Copy presented of Second Report of the Committee on Promotion of Officers in the Special Reserve, New Armies, and Territorial Force, together with a Note by the Army Council [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Colonial Report, No. 950 (Bechuanaland Protectorate Report for 1916–17) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table
BOARD OF EDUCATION (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Report of the Departmental Committee for inquiring into the Principles which should determine the construction of Scales of Salary for Teachers in Elementary Schools [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CORN PRODUCTION ACT, 1917.
Copies presented of Regulations made by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
DESTRUCTIVE INSEGTS AND PESTS ACTS.
Copy presented of Order numbered D.I.P. 516, declaring an area described in the Schedule thereto to be infected with Wart Disease and an infected area for the purposes of the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the undermentioned local authority, and confirmed, with amendment, by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:
Borough of Boston
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

MINISTRY OF FOOD.
Copy presented of Mangels and Swedes (Prices) (Ireland) Order, 1917, Wheat (Seed) Order, 1918, Milk (Registration of Dealers) Order, 1918, Deer (Restriction of Feeding) Order, 1918, Meat (Maximum Prices) Orders 1917, Sugar (Rationing) Order, 1917, Meat (Retailers' Restriction) Order, 1918, Livestock (Restriction of Slaughter) Order, 1918, Sugar Order (Ireland), 1917, British Onions Order, 1917, Meat (Maximum Prices) Order, Personal Licence, 1917, Intoxicating Liquor (Output and Delivery) Order (No. 5), 1917, Cattle (Sales) Order, Oat Products (Retail Prices) Order, 1917, as amended by Oats Products (Postponement of Date) Order, 1917, and Oats Products (Retail Prices) Order (No. 2), 1917, Food Control Committees (Margarine Requisition) Order, 1917, Milk (Amendment) Order, Margarine (Registration of Dealers) Order, 1917, British Cheese Order, and Meat (Maximum Prices) Order (No. 3), 1917, Sheep Sales Order, 1918, Fish (Prices) Order, 1918, Dutch Cheese Prices Order (Notice), Ruin and Gin (Restriction of Sales) Order, 1918, Cattle Feeding Stuffs (Requisition) Order, 1918, made by the Food Controller under the Defence of the Realm Regulations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL DEBT.
Copy presented of Return showing (1) the Aggregate Gross Liabilities of the State as represented by the Nominal Funded Debt, Estimated Capital Liability in

1273
respect of Terminable Annuities, Unfunded Debt, and other Liabilities in respect of Debt, the Estimated Assets, and the Exchequer Balances at the close Of each financial year from 1875–6 to 1916–17, both inclusive; and (2) the Gross and Net Expenditure charged annually during that period against the. Public Revenue on account of the National Debt, and other Payments connected with Capital Liabilities [by Command); to lie upon the Table.

SUPREME COURT; PRIZE, ETC., DEPOSIT ACCOUNT, 1916–17.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 24th January; (Mr. Baldwin); to lie upon. the Table, and to be printed. [No. 178.]
HOUSING ACT, 1914.
Copy presented of Account showing the money issued out of the Consolidated Fund; the money borrowed and the securities created in respect thereof; and the expenditure of a capital nature incurred by the Local Government Board for Scotland and the Commissioner of Works, respectively, under the Housing Act, 1914, For the period ended 31st March, 1917; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 179.]
PUBLIC OFFICES, SITES, AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS EXPENSES ACCOUNTS, 1916–17.
Accounts presented showing the Moneys issued out of the Consolidated Fund, the Moneys borrowed and the Securities created in respect thereof, and the Expenditure, under the provisions of the Acts, to the 31st March, 1917; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 180.]
NATIONAL DEBT (GOVERNMENT STOCK REGULATIONS), 1918.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 25th January, 1918, made by the Treasury, in conjunction with the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland, under the Finance Act, 1917, for facilitating Transactions in connection with Government Stock [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
LUNACY (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Sixty-sixth Report of the Inspectors of Lunatics in Ireland for the year, 1916, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Rule amending the definition of "School" in the Rules of the Intermediate Education Board (Ireland) [by Act]; to, lie upon the Table.
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (IRELAND), 1877.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 25th January, 1918, giving effect to Rules of Court [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
DEFENCE OF THE REALM (ACQUISITION OF LAND) ACT, 1916.
Copy presented of Rules made by the Railway and Canal Commissioners in pursuance of the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1916, and the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
The following Sessional Returns were ordered on the Motion of the DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS:
ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 10.
Return of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing, the definite matter of urgent public importance, and the result of any Division taken thereon during Session 1917–18 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 147, of Session 1916).
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Return showing, with reference to Session 1917–18, (1) the total number of days on which the House sat; and (2) the days on which Business of Supply was considered (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 148, of Session 1916).

PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Return of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into

1275
the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in the Session 1917–18, classed according to the following subjects: Railways; Tramways; Tramroads; Subways; Canals and Navigations; Roads and Bridges; Water; Waterworks; Gas; Gas and Water; Lighting and Improvement; Local Legislation; Corporations, etc. (not relating to Local Legislation or to Lighting and Improvement Schemes); Ports; Piers, Harbours, and Docks; Churches, Chapels, and Burying Grounds; Markets and Fairs; Gaols and ether County Buildings; Inclosure and Drainage; Estate; Patent; Divorce; and Miscellaneous:
Of all the Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1917–18 have been reported on by Committees on Opposed Private Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member has served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the Preamble of which were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed:
Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in Session 1917–18, have been referred by the Committee of Selection, or by the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, to the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, together with the names of the Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended:
And, of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which have been referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.3363, of Session 1916).

PUBLIC BILLS.
Return of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other
1276
Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1917–18; showing the number which received the Royal Assent; the number which were passed by this House, but not by the House of Lords; the number passed by the House of Lords, but not by this House; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills as did not receive the Royal Assent were dropped or postponed and rejected in either House of Parliament (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No, 0.3669, of Session 1916).

PUBLIC PETITIONS.
Return of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in Session 1917–18; with the total number of signatures in that, Session (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.3687, of Session 1916).
SELECT COMMITTEES.
Return of the number of Select Committees appointed to Session 1917–18 and the Court of Referees; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name. of the Member who moved for such Select Committee; also the total number of Members who served on Select Committees (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.3570, of Session 1916).
SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
Return of the days on which the House sat in Session 1917–18, stating for each day the date of the month and the day of the week, the hour of meeting, and the hour of adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after eleven p.m.; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings.

STANDING COMMITTEES.
Return for the Session of 1917–18, of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the four Standing Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 47, showing, with regard to

1277
each of such Members, the number of sittings at which he was present and the number of Divisions in which he took part; and (2) the number of Bills considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of days on which each Committee sat, and the names of all Bills considered by a Standing Committee, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing, in the case of each Bill, the particular Standing Committee by whom it was considered, the number of days on which it was considered by the Committee, and the number of Members present on each of those days (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 0.123, of Session 1914).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    RUSSIA.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the possibility that Russia may still play an important military part in the war, and considering also the danger that a policy of may turn that fighting force against one or other of the Allies, and in face of the fact also that in the visit of Ambassadors and Ministers to M. Lenin the absence of a British representative was conspicuous, he will now arrange for a special Embassy to Petrograd composed of distinguished men in sympathy with Republican ideals, and make all arrangements for the appointment of an Ambassador to succeed Sir George Buchanan?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is in the negative. Let me add that he is utterly mistaken in supposing that there is any policy of "ill-will" to Russia or Russians.
    Mr. LYNCH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if in this question he will assert his own personality more, and rise out of the grooves of a hopeless Foreign Office?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Does the right hon. Gentleman disagree with the action of the
    1278
    French Government, whose Foreign Minister has stigmatised the Russian Government as a set of usurpers with whom he has nothing to do?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should put that question to the French Minister.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I wish I could.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Home Secretary whether he exercises any powers of censorship over the telegrams arriving from foreign parts or over other communications concerning the actions of the present Russian Government?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): All telegrams from abroad have been since the beginning of the War, and still are, subject to censorship.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is it correct to say that whereas his Department keeps back telegrams from M. Trotsky, yet it allows currency to be given to the wildest rumours detrimental to the present rulers of Russia?
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not know anything about that.

    CHINA (SHAMEEN ISLAND CONCESSION).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the legal questions in regard to which a decision is pending which prevent the buildings belonging to Germany in the British concession on the Island of Shameen, in China, being taken over and the leases terminated?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I am still in communication with His Majesty's Minister in Peking on the subject-matter of this question.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    CHINA TEA.
    Sir ALFRED YEOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any representations from traders on the continued failure to arrange for the importation of China tea; whether the percentage of import has yet been decided; and whether, and how, the necessary tonnage has yet been provided?
    Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. Representations have been received from traders asking the Ministry of Food to arrange for the importation of China tea. Arrangements have been made by which tea will be bought in China on behalf of the Ministry of Food for importation to the United Kingdom in neutral tonnage. If sufficient tonnage be available it is intended to purchase 3,000,000 lbs. in the present year. The arrangements for tonnage will be made by the Ministry's agents in China.

    BASIC SLAG.
    Captain WRIGHTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether application was recently made by a director of the Staveley Coal and Iron Company, Limited, which is a manufacturer of basic slag, and of which the works are situated in Derbyshire, for permission sell basic slag to farmers in the above county, who having, in response to the appeals of his Department, put quantities of sulphate of ammonia on their land, are now urgently in need of basic slag or lime which they cannot obtain; and that the above application has been refused on the ground that 25,000 tons of basic slag must be sent to Ireland; and whether he will take steps to secure that the local and other English farmers shall, at any rate as regards securing a fair share of the available supplies of basic slag, not be put in a worse position than Irish farmers, who, owing to the policy of the Government, nave fewer difficulties to contend with in the production of food?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): It appears to be the fact that basic slag ground in Derbyshire and the neighbouring counties was reserved for a time, so as to meet Irish orders for this product supported by the Irish Board of Agriculture. With regard to the third and last part of the question, I should perhaps point out that English farmers are now receiving basic slag considerably in excess of the pre-war quantity which they used, and that Irish farmers have not received more slag than is their proper share having regard to their acreage of food crops.
    Captain WRIGHT: Is basic slag being held back to go to Ireland at the present moment?
    Mr. PROTHERO: At the present moment I believe it is not, but I am not fully informed on that matter because I do not quite know whether the requirements arranged with the Irish Department of Agriculture are yet complete.
    Mr. FIELD: Is the right lion. Gentleman aware of the fact that complaints have been forwarded to him from Ireland owing to the insufficient supply of fertilisers sent to that country?
    Mr. PROTHERO: I believe that is the case.
    Colonel YATE: If the right hon. Gentleman gives Ireland basic slag, will he ask the Irish Department of Agriculture to give us some butter?
    Mr. FIELD: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman provide the butter; will he make it himself?

    LAMB SLAUGHTER ORDER.
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he is aware that irritation is felt at the recently issued Lamb Slaughter Order; that it will prevent a quantity of animal food coming into the market in April and May, when such food is scarce; is he aware that this will prevent the dams which are too old for further breeding from being fattened for the market, resulting in the consumption of grass required for the use of the store draft ewes usually purchased for next year's lamb crop; and will he withdraw the Order?
    Mr. PARKER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given last Wednesday, to which I have at present nothing to add.

    COLD AIR STORES, MANCHESTER.
    Mr. STANTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what is the total storage capacity of the Manchester Corporation cold-air stores as measured in 56–1b. mutton carcases; what proportion of that space was, on Saturday. 19th January, occupied with goods stored on Government account for military purposes; what was the total space occupied on private account; approximately what tonnage of goods was stored on private account; who were the four principal holders; and what was the character of their holdings?
    Mr. PARKER: The gross storage capacity of the Manchester Corporation cold-air stores is 391,000 cubic feet, equal to 146,000 carcases of mutton of 56-1bs. weight. On Saturday, 19th January, 26 per cent. of the space was occupied with goods stored on Government account and 14.5 per cent. was occupied with goods stored on private account, weighing, approximately, 533 tons. The four principal private holders and the character of their holdings were as follows:
    Armour and Company, of Liverpool, meat, 95 tons.
    Goodwin, of Manchester, Apples, 58 tons.
    Blackburn, of Manchester, apples, 47 tons.
    Park Brothers, of Liverpool, tripe, 14 tons.

    FOOD SHORTAGE, SOUTH WALES MINING CENTRES.
    Mr. STANTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he is aware of the food famine in the South Wales mining centres, and of the fact that the miners and other workers cannot get food to take during their working hours; and will he see that some better system of rationing is at once put in force?
    Mr. PARKER: The Food Controller is aware that there have lately been serious shortages of certain foods in the South Wales mining centres. Full details of these were laid before him last week by a deputation from the South Wales Miners' Federation. He is taking measures to accelerate the introduction of a local rationing scheme under his Order of 22nd December, which will, it is hoped, go far to remove the difficulties in question.
    Mr. EDWARDS: In view of the fact that the South Wales miners are fulfilling so important a part in this War by supplying the Navy with coal, will the right hon. Gentleman not make some exceptional arrangement for their benefit?
    Mr. PARKER: I do not know what the hon. Member means by "exceptional arrangement." I can only give him the answer I have given. I presume he does not desire that this part of the country should have a larger share than any other part of the country.

    WATER ICE.
    Mr. WATTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether
    1282
    he is aware that by the terms of the Ice Cream (Restriction) Order, 1917, the manufacture of what is known as water ice, which consists of water, to which arrowroot is added to whiten it, liquid saccharin to sweeten it, and fruit essence to flavour it, no sugar or milk being used, is wholly restricted; that water ice mixed with temperance drinks is sold at a price of 1d. to numbers of the working classes of this country; and whether, under these circumstances and with the view of encouraging the public to drink temperance drinks, he can see his way to amend this Order by excluding from its operation the manufacture of water ice?
    Mr. PARKER: The answer to this question was printed in last Wednesday's OFFICIAL REPORT (cols. 988–989).

    JAM-MAKING.
    Mr. KINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that jam may be made with no sugar but using glucose, corn-sugar, or corn-syrup as a substitute; and whether supplies of these substitutes can be made available for growers of their own fruit who in the coming summer are prepared to make jam for home consumption?
    Mr. PARKER: I am informed that liquid glucose, corn-sugar, and corn-syrup can to some extent be used as diluents of sugar in the making of jam; but no considerable supplies of these articles are likely to be available for this purpose during the present year.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the desire of the private fruit growers to know if there will be a supply of sugar for jam-making, as at the present time the sugar which was issued last year is enabling a number of householders to restrict their demand for butter, margarine, etc.; and can he slate whether a similar supply of sugar will be available this year?
    Mr. PARKER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have already stated that Lord Rhondda hopes to make a definite announcement on this subject at an early date.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Will the hon. Gentleman see that the announcement is made as soon as possible, as the fruit growers want to know what they are to do?
    Mr. PARKER: I will convey the request of the hon. Member to Lord Rhondda.

    CONFECTIONERY AND BEER.
    Mr. KINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether a reduction has recently been made in the amount of sugar allowed for the confectionery trade; if so, whether a corresponding amount of reduction in sugar and glucose has been made for the brewing trade; and whether the food values of confectionery and beer have been compared and considered in this connection?
    Mr. PARKER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the rest of the question does not, therefore, arise.

    PESTS (DESTRUCTION).
    Captain WRIGHTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in the interests of home-grown food production, the Food Controller will fix a price for wood-pigeons, sparrows, and rats?
    Mr. PARKER: I presume the intention of the hon. Member to be that a reward should be offered for the destruction of the pests in question. This would be a matter for the Food Production Department.
    Captain WRIGHT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable number of people who have had experience of some of the Orders issued by the Ministry of Food arc of opinion that if the Food Controller would be good enough to fix a price for these pests they would at once disappear?

    TEA IMPORTS.
    Sir A. YEOasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has decided the percentage of tea imports from India and Ceylon during 1918, and what is the basis of payment to the planters?
    Mr. PARKER: It is not yet possible to decide the percentage of tea which will be imported from India and from Ceylon during 1918. The basis of payment to the planters is their pre-war prices, subject to certain adjustments in view of war conditions.

    FLOUR SHORTAGE (IRELAND).
    Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of
    1284
    Food whether his attention has been drawn to complaints of the inferior quality of flour now being supplied in the North-West of Ireland and to its insufficiency and unsuitability for purposes of home baking; whether he is aware that a large number of the inhabitants of the more remote districts are entirely dependent upon home baking; and what provision is being made in the matter?
    Mr. PARKER: Government Regulation Flour now being supplied throughout Ireland is identical with the authorised standard for the whole of the United Kingdom. The Canadian and American flours imported into Ireland are likewise of the same types as the imported flours distributed in other parts of the United Kingdom. I cannot agree with the suggestion that the flour supplied is unsuitable for purposes of home-baking. In the industrial parts of England home-baking with this flour is extensively practised, with satisfactory results.
    Mr. LAW: Is the flour that is distributed in the North-West of Ireland the same standard flour?
    Mr. PARKER: The reply which I have received is that this is the only kind of flour sent to Ireland, and it is identical in character with that which is being distributed in Great Britain.
    Mr. LAW: But I understand that is only 15 per cent. of the flour used?
    Mr. PARKER: I hesitate to reply, but I presume that the remainder is local Irish flour.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the scarcity of flour in Ireland; and if he will state what steps he intends to take to secure a regular supply?
    Mr. PARKER: I have been asked to reply. The Irish Food Control Committee have received numerous complaints with regard to the scarcity of flour in different parts of Ireland, particularly the West and North-West portion, and in every case where investigation has shown that actual shortage existed steps have been taken by the Committee, in conjunction with the Irish Flour Millers' Association, to provide emergency supplies. The amount of flour milled in Ireland, together with that imputed into the country, is sufficient to meet the general needs of the population, and every effort is being made to secure

    1285
    equitable distribution. But the difficulties of this task are considerably increased by the practice of hoarding flour, and by its use for feeding calves and pigs, in contravention of the Food Controller's Orders.
    Mr. LARDNER: Is there a week's reserve of flour in Ireland, having regard to the difficulties of transport, and can the Department make transport arrangements to provide an additional reserve there?
    Mr. PARKER: I cannot answer myself, and my hon. Friend who represents the Food Department is away. The Food Controller's general statement is that there is at the present time a sufficiency of flour in Ireland, though there has been some slight breakdown in the distribution. If the Food Controller's arrangements are carried out, however, Ireland has sufficient flour, equally with the rest of the United Kingdom.

    MEAT.
    The following question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. HARCOURT:
    31. To ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that butchers refuse to enter the names of new customers in view of the recent Order limiting their supplies; whether he is aware that butchers with whom substantial custom has in the past been placed by an individual also refuse to accept orders unless the person comes within their definition of a regular customer, which adjective they appear to interpret in some cases as having dealt with one firm exclusively and uninterruptedly in large amounts; whether it is the wish of the Department that for war purposes consumers should register with a single butcher near their residences; and, if so, will he explain how persons who have changed their addresses in London or who have set up house in London for the first time are to get meat?
    Mr. HARCOURT: This question was put down before the announcement was made in reference to meat.
    Mr. PARKER: The Food Controller is aware that, owing to the present shortage, various difficulties of the kind indicated by the hon. Member have arisen in connection with the retail sale of meat. Under the rationing schemes now in preparation these difficulties should disappear. Customers will be given a reason-
    1286
    able liberty in their choice of retailers. Pending the introduction of the new scheme, persons who have changed their addresses in London should continue to draw their supplies from the butcher with whom they previously dealt; no special arrangements can be made for those who are setting up house in London for the first time.
    Mr. HARCOURT: Does the hon. Member mean that all persons who have changed their address anywhere in the administrative county of London are to deal with the last butcher with whom they dealt and are to fetch the meat wherever they are situated? That affects a good many people.
    Mr. PARKER: I realise the difficulty, and I know that distance means a great deal, but I have made inquiries in regard to this matter, and I am assured that nothing further can be done at the moment.
    Mr. HARCOURT: Do the Department realise the fact that some persons may have given very substantial custom to their butcher a considerable time ago, but very small custom recently? I ask this question for the general convenience of the butchers and all concerned.
    Mr. PARKER: I can only bring the matter before the notice of the Food Controller.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Who is to choose the meat when it is rationed—the butcher or the purchaser?
    Mr. PARKER: That is a difficult question.
    Mr. GULLANDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that in many towns Wednesday is the market day, on which country people come in to do their shopping for the week; and that, as Wednesday is a meatless day, it is now impossible for these people to buy any meat; and whether he will allow such towns to fix the meatless day on another than a market day?
    Mr. PARKER: The restrictions imposed by the Public Meals Order only affect public eating-places. It is, therefore, still possible for people to purchase meat for household purposes. It would considerably lessen the economy of consumption

    1287
    sought to be effected by the Order if different towns were allowed to choose different days.

    FOOD PRODUCTION (IRELAND).
    Mr. KEATINGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that the small holders and working men in the vicinity of Callan, county Kilkenny, are unable to secure any further acreage for food production owing to the fact that the owners of grass lands are leasing to large graziers on the eleven months' system; and, in view of the need for increasing the food supplies for the poor in the town, he will state whether he has power to stop the practice referred to; and, if so, what steps will he take in the matter?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): I am not aware of dissatisfaction among small landholders or working men in the vicinity of Callanat not being able to obtain more land for tillage, and the Local Government Board have not received any communication as to the necessity for providing allotments. I am told that the owners of several cottages in the Callan district have left their plots of land untilled.
    Mr. FIELD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great dissatisfaction all over Ireland in consequence of the difficulty of obtaining land for allotments owing to the Regulations that the local authorities have to administer?
    Mr. DUKE: The Bill which I introduced and the Regulations produce no difficulties; they provide facilities.

    FISHING INDUSTRIES (IRELAND).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will take steps to secure additional facilities for those engaged in the fishing industries in Ireland; if he is aware of the difficulties placed in the way of those engaged in fishing and fish-curing; and if, in order to procure additional supplies of fish which can be cured and preserved for emergencies, he will remove all the pre-war restrictions, reduce the price of licences, and allow fish to be caught everywhere possible?
    Mr. DUKE: The Department of Agriculture arc always ready to take any possible steps to secure additional facilities for those engaged in the fishing industries of Ireland, and the Congested Districts
    1288
    Board are also prepared to take such steps as, in their opinion, are practicable to increase the facilities for sea fisheries in the West of Ireland. Fishing and fish-curing are suffering from special difficulties at the present time. The preservation of fish by curing is chiefly a question of supply and demand, and until the demand for fresh fish can be satisfied, no increase is likely to take place in the quantity cured.
    The Licence Duties now in force are not onerous, and their maintenance is essential for the protection of the fisheries. The Department would regard a general removal of pre-war restrictions on fishing as certain to cause permanent injury to the fisheries.
    Mr. LYNCH: Could not something be done to foster this industry; for instance, on the West Coast of Clare, where it could be increased tenfold, with great advantage to the whole community?
    Mr. DUKE: We are fostering the industry on the West Coast and on the South Coast.
    Mr. H. LAW: Has any progress been. made in the matter of facilities for fishing harbours within the last couple of months, and have not certain negotiations been got through?
    Mr. DUKE: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

    HUT CONSTRUCTION, SOUTH MOLTON ROAD, DEVON.
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether seventeen men were sent to South Molten Road, Devon, and are paid £1 each overtime and found all food; whether, in seven weeks from 8th December, they have built two huts, 50 feet by 30 feet, of wood already cut; and whether, if so, steps will be taken to check this waste of money and man-power?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): Inquiries are being made, and I will acquaint my right hon. Friend of the result.

    RAILWAY COMPANIES (PENSIONS).
    Colonel Sir CHARLES SEELYasked the President of the Board of Trade

    1289
    whether his attention has been drawn to the hardship caused to men who are in receipt of superannuation pensions from the railway companies by the rise of prices due to the War; and whether he will take into consideration, as the railways have been taken over by the Government for the term of the War, the grant to them of some moderate increase?
    Mr. WARDLE: I am afraid that the rise in the cost of living must necessarily cause some hardship to ail persons in receipt of fixed incomes. Superannuated railway servants are paid from funds in the hands of the railway companies, to which the recipients have contributed on the basis of a fixed return, and I doubt whether they can be treated differently from persons in a similar position in other classes of the community.
    Sir C. SEELY: Considering that the Government have made a very large profit out of their dealings with the railway companies, why could they not let a little of this profit go to these men who are suffering in consequence of the War?
    Mr. WARDLE: I am not so sure about the profit.
    Sir C. SEELY: It is the case. It is a very large profit.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. WINGasked the Pensions Minister if he is aware of the suspension of pensions for several weeks and neglect of his Department to reply to letters of inquiry; why such suspensions take place; and is he aware of consequent distress arising from such inaction?
  The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr.Hodge): The answers to the first and third parts of the question are in the affirmative. Sometimes suspension of pension payments is due to the failure of the pensioner to comply with certain limited but necessary formalities, and sometimes to accident or carelessness. Every effort is made to reduce, and with some measure of success, the number of cases in which suspension or delay occurs.
  Mr. HINDSasked the Pensions Minister whether, in the contemplated appointment of additional inspectors, he will give an assurance that those appointed for Wales will have a knowledge of the Welsh language?
  Mr. HODGE: All other conditions being equal, certainly.
  Major DAVID DAVIESIn making these appointments will the right hon. Gentleman give preference to applicants who are discharged soldiers and sailors?
  Mr. HODGE: That also is my intention.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Pensions Minister whether the pension to widows and children is to be increased?
  Mr. HODGE: I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement with regard to a revision of the Royal Warrant which would deal with the matter referred to in. the lion. Member's question.

  DISABLEMENT TREATMENT.
  Mr. RICHARDSasked the Pensions Minister what is the number of cases of permanently disabled sailors and soldiers who have already received disablement treatment in South Wales and Monmouthshire who are now receiving such treatment, and who are awaiting treatment, respectively; what institutions under direct control of the Government exist in Wales for affording such treatment; whether, having regard to the dissatisfaction which exists in consequence of the delay which is taking place in the treatment and training of sailors and soldiers. in Wales, the immediate provision of further institutions is contemplated; what are the functions of the South Wales Joint Pensions (Disablement Committee; whether it has been provided with any Imperial funds for carrying on its work; and, if not, whether he will consider the advisability of entrusting the committee and other similar committees with the spending of Imperial funds in the provision and maintenance of after care and training institutions, with a view to the Ministry of Pensions, whilst retaining its full right of supervision, being relieved of work which can be better and more expeditiously undertaken by such committees in the several areas over which they exercise jurisdiction?
  Mr. HODGE: I have no information as to the number in a given locality of discharged men under treatment who are permanently disabled as distinct from those temporarily disabled. The number of disabled men of both classes who are at present receiving treatment in South Wales and Monmouthshire under conditions which entitle them to the full

  1291
  allowances proided by Article 4 (1) of the Royal Warrant is 418, but the total number of men under treatment, including out-patient treatment, would be substantially larger than this figure. The institutions available for such treatment which are at present directly under the control of a Department of State in Wales number eighty-six, but it is given also in many civil hospitals and institutions. As regards the provision of further institutions to which the hon. Member refers, this is in hand and will. I hope, presently secure another 500 beds.
  The South Wales Joint (Disablement) Committee possesses under the Naval and Military War Pensions Act, 1915, such functions as may be delegated to it by the constitutent local committees, and these functions include that of making arrangements for treatment or training with institutions which are designed to serve extended areas. It is the policy of the Department to use the joint disablement committees as agents for the provision and maintenance of new institutions.
  Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: In view of the fact that these joint disablement committees in South Wales are so heavily involved in work, can the right hon. Gentleman not see his way to give them some financial assistance?
  Mr. HODGE: I understand they do get financial assistance.
  Mr. EDWARDS: Not to the extent they have asked for.

  MUNITIONS.

    CONTRACTS (COST PLUS PERCENTAGE).
    Mr. WATTasked the Minister of Munitions whether contracts are now entered into by his Department on the principle of cost plus percentage; and, if not, will he say at what date that system was abandoned?
    Sir WORTHINGTON EVANS (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions): The cost plus percentage form of contract is adopted only where there is great difficulty in fixing prices owing to the amount of work being indeterminate. The undesirability of this form of contract is recognised and its use is restricted to the minimum, e.g., for experimental work, repairs, and certain build-
    1292
    ings, particularly where it is impossible to prepare detailed designs in advance. To minimise the objection to this form of contract a stipulation is now made that the percentage shall not be calculated upon the amount of any increase of wages awarded after the date of the contract.
    Mr. WATT: Has it been found in practice that this system of cost plus percentage is not a money-saving device?
    Sir W. EVANS: It is not a money-saving device, but sometimes it is inevitable because you cannot save the money in any other form.

    ALCOHOL (PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS).
    Mr. McKINNON WOODasked the Minister of Munitions whether the Report of the Special Committee appointed by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) to inquire into the physiological effects of alcohol has been completed for some time; and, if so, will he say when it will be published?
    Mr. KELLAWAY (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions): I am informed that the Report was settled for publication early in the present month, and that it is expected that it will be published before the middle of February.

    TEMPORARY OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
    Major DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, whilst Regular officers employed at the Ministry of Munitions receive promotion from time to time, temporary officers employed under the Ministry of Munitions are not promoted whatever their technical qualifications and active service experience may be; whether there is any Regulation or informal understanding to the effect that temporary officers employed at the Ministry of Munitions are not to be promoted; and whether promotion for all persons employed by the Ministry of Munitions rests with the Ministry of Munitions. or the Secretary of State for War?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): All officers who hold permanent commissions, namely, Regular, Special Reserve, and Territorial Force officers, employed at the Ministry are eligible for promotion. Temporary officers, that is, those who hold commissions for the period of the War only, are not so eligible, but they are by special

    1293
    arrangement permitted to retain their commissions although they have ceased to do duty as officers. All military promotions are dealt with by the War Office.

    CONVALESCENT PATIENTS (NAVAL HOSPITALS).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what Regulations are now in force in regard to the grant of short leave to convalescent patients in naval hospitals; whether, at the Royal Naval Hospital, Plymouth, twenty-five married patients only, whose homes must be in the vicinity, are allowed out on Sundays from one to five p.m.; and, if so, will he consider the possibility of extending to patients in naval hospitals the same privileges in the matter of short leave as are now enjoyed by patients in military hospitals upon whom no such restrictions are imposed?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The Regulations now in force in regard to the grant of short leave to convalescent patients in naval hospitals generally are as follows:—
    Leave is granted

    (1) For motor drives.

    (2) For entertainments, tea parties, etc.

    (3) For married men to visit their homes if in proximity to the hospital at the discretion of the medical officer in charge of the case.

    As regards the last Regulation, Orders have been given that it shall be applied more extensively in future and shall be applicable to single men, so that naval and military practice as regards short leave shall be assimilated as far as possible.
    Mr. BENN: When were these Orders put in force?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Not very long ago, because the matter has been the subject of discussion between the medical officers and myself during the last few days. They are the result of suggestions which have been made in several quarters.

    DESTROYERS' BOATS (CANVAS COVERS.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his Department in
    1294
    placing contracts for the six or eight small wooden boats wanted for each destroyer still insists that each of such boats should have a canvas cover attached to it; if so, is he aware that each of these covers now costs £10 or thereby, that the boats are never covered in war time, and that the canvases at the earliest opportunity are thrown overboard as an encumbrance; and will he see that all orders for equipment are now made on a war and not on a peace basis?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Only three small wooden boats are carried on modern destroyers—namely, a motor boat, whaler, and dinghy—and for these boats covers are supplied, being as necessary in war as in peace time. In order to reduce the cost, however, these covers are now made of cotton canvas. When lying alongside wharves and when undergoing repairs, etc., these covers are always in use, and even at sea the motor boat and dinghy are kept covered. Furthermore, there is no case known of covers being thrown overboard; they are on store charge, and any losses have to be accounted for by the officers concerned.
    Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the men freely state that they will throw these things overboard at the first opportunity?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: All I can say is that if any officer or non-commissioned officer loses things in his charge he has to pay for them.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    POST OFFICE SERVANTS, GLASGOW.
    Mr. WATTasked the Postmaster-General whether it is by his instructions that postal servants in Glasgow who have been exempted from military service on the ground of conscientious objection and who are performing work of national importance in the Post Office are suffering a reduction of wages to the rate paid to temporary assistants, which is equal to a reduction of 20s. 6d. a week from wages already low; whether he is aware that these men only took advantage of a right given them in an Act of Parliament; and whether he will alter this instruction at an early date?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): I would refer the hon.

    1295
    Member to the answer which I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member for Blackburn on the 16th instant.
    Mr. WATT: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that his Department has made a breach of contract in regard to these servants? Are you to make their contracts scraps of paper?

    ONE-MAN BUSINESSES.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Local Government Board for England and Wales issued, some weeks ago, an instruction to tribunals that men called to the Colours who are owners of one-man businesses are to receive certain considerations from the tribunals; whether he is aware that a similar instruction has not been issued to Scotland, and that, as a consequence, tribunals there are not giving the same consideration to owners of one-man businesses as elsewhere in the Kingdom; and will he explain why this preference according to locality should be given?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): The reply to the first part of my hon. and learned Friend's question is in the affirmative. Instructions in a form appropriate to the Scottish conditions have been under consideration and negotiation during the current month, and will, it is expected, be issued this week.

    CENTRAL APPEAL TRIBUNAL (ANGUS CHASSELS).
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Central Appeal Tribunal in the case of Angus M'Nab Chassels, Coatbridge; what was the constitution of the tribunal which gave the decision; whether this decision reversed the unanimous findings of the local and county Appeal Tribunals; whether the case put before the Central Tribunal by the military representative contained statements which had been disproved in evidence at former hearings; whether the local tribunal has protested against the decision of the Central Tribunal; whether the treatment given to Mr. Chassels, as compared with other men in the same trade in Coatbridge, has given rise to general dissatisfaction; and whether, in these circumstances, the case of Mr. Chassels will be
    1296
    reopened by the Central Appeal Tribunal, so that he may have an opportunity of being legally represented and thus disproving the untrue statements put forward as the basis of the appeal by the military representative?
    Mr. MUNRO: My attention has not been previously drawn to this case. I ant informed that the appeal was decided in the ordinary course of the proceedings of the Central Tribunal. I am aware that the decision of the Central Tribunal was contrary to the decisions of the local and Appeal Tribunals. Every opportunity was afforded to Mr. Chassels to submit to the Central Tribunal representations in support of his ease, and the representations put forward by him, which dealt with the alleged inaccurate statements made by the National Service representative, were very carefully considered by the Central Tribunal when arriving at their decision. Representations relative to the alleged misstatements by the National Service representative were also received from the local tribunal after the case was decided. They were very fully considered, but the Central Tribunal saw no reason for altering their decision. I am unaware that the decision of the Central Tribunal has given rise to dissatisfaction in the district. I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that the full facts of the case were before the Central Tribunal when they arrived at their decision. The case has been very fully considered by the Central Tribunal, as I am informed, on no fewer than three occasions, and they see no reason for reopening the matter.

    INDENTURED APPRENTICES.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Minister of National Service whether, in view of the hardship on masters and men involved in the calling up of indentured apprentices who have paid a premium and Served part of their time, he can see his way to having Section 96 of the Army Act again put into operation?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): It is not possible to exclude men of military age from the operation of the Military Service Acts on the grounds stated in the question of the hon. Member. This is only one of the many hardships which are inevitable in a great war.
    Mr. WING: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the War Office to reconsider the ques-

    1297
    tion of the premium in such cases as these, which is a hardship additional to the one already named in the question?
    Mr. BECK: I think that my lion. Friend had better ask the War Office himself directly.
    Mr. WING: I have already done that.

    OFFICERS' PAY.
    Major DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the Army Council intend to grant retired pay to those officers who have served during the War and, having attained the age limit of fifty-five, have been compulsorily retained in the Service; and whether he will thus make the treatment of officers the same as that of non-commissioned officers and men, who receive their pension in addition to their pay after twenty-one years' service?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I can add nothing to the answer given my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Melton on 6th December.

    CADET UNITS.
    Major DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, at present, owing to the large number of candidates sent home from overseas for admission to Cavalry, Artillery, and Infantry officer Cadet units, candidates from home sources are not accepted for such admission except in a limited number of special cases, and the general rule for candidates, both from home and abroad, is that their rank must not be below that of corporal?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer is in the affirmative. Preference is naturally given to candidates who are recommended while serving in the face of the enemy. Recently the course of training in officer Cadet units has been lengthened. Consequently it has been found necessary to cut down the supply of candidates from home sources, and to restrict, as a general rule, admission to these units to candidates who have already been promoted to the rank of corporal. It is felt that candidates who have shown the qualities of leadership in the field will be readily selected for corporal's rank, and these are the men to train for the position of platoon leader. We have found as the War proceeds that we are able to raise our standard, owing to the experience gained by candidates for commissions as non-commissioned officers.

    1914 STAR.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in the issue of the "1914 Bronze Star," the men of the Indian Expeditionary Force, who were landed at Marseilles, will be entitled to the medal, while the men who were on the water and sent to England to form further divisions for embarkation will not; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of issuing the medal to all the men?
    Mr. MACPHERSONIn accordance with Army Order No. 350 of 1917 the "1914 Star" will be awarded to all officers, warrant officers, and non-commissioned officers, and men of the British and Indian Forces, who actually served in France or Belgium on the establishment of a unit of the British Expeditionary Force between the 5th August, 1914, and midnight of the 22nd–23rd November, 1914. Unless individuals comply with the conditions of this Army Order they are ineligible for the award of the Star.

    RUSSIAN SUBJECTS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the many men of low physical standard sent as Russian subjects, under the Russian Military Service Convention, to Maid-stone, and especially of such cases as J. Dloogatz, suffering for years from tuberculosis, and Mark Kravetz, a cripple with a, wooden leg, both presumably sent there for drafts to regiments; and whether, to prevent useless men being drafted into the Army, lie will cause full inquiry to be made?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have called for a report, and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

    DRAFT LEAVE.
    Sir A. YEOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether men placed on draft for the East are usually given four clear days' draft leave; whether he is aware that all the leave granted to the men in the Royal Engineers, Wireless Section, at Hitchin, is forty-eight hours; whether this leave was granted before the men were placed on draft, and was in cases quite inadequate; and whether he will see that proper draft leave is granted to all the men concerned?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 10th December to my hon. Friend the Member for Haggerston. If my hon. Friend will give me the details of any case he has in mind, I shall be happy to make inquiries.

    12TH ROYAL WELSH FUSILIERS.
    Mr. HINDSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the reasons why the 12th Royal Welsh Fusiliers, 62nd Training Reserve Battalion, was changed into the 53rd Cheshire Regiment; whether he is aware that this change has caused dissatisfaction to the Welsh officers and soldiers attached to the division, which is comprised of only 12 per cent. Cheshire men; and whether it is contemplated to draft any further Welsh Territorial regiments to other units?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: This battalion is a young soldiers' battalion, specially organised to receive young soldiers of eighteen years and one month. Three young soldiers' battalions were formed in the Fourth District, and were affiliated to regiments, this one being affiliated to the Cheshire Regiment, and the other two to the Welsh regiment and the South Wales Borderers. This battalion was formed from a Training Reserve Battalion, which ceased to have any connection with the Royal Welsh Fusiliers as long ago as September, 1916. It is not posted to a division, and the latter part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

    TELEGRAM DELAYED.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the Postmaster-General whether he can explain why a telegram dispatched from Dakar on or before 7th January was not delivered to the addressee at Liverpool until noon of 18th January, seeing it only contained the two words, "Left, Williams''; whether lie can state when this telegram was received in Liverpool and who was responsible for the delay in delivery; and whether lie is aware that a telegram of a similar nature handed in at Dakar on the afternoon of 20th January was delivered to the addressee at Liverpool on the early morning of 22nd January?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I sent him on the 24th instant, namely, that the telegram in question was not received in
    1300
    this country until the 18th January. It was not forwarded over British cables, and I am unable to say to what cause its delay was due.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman ascertain who is responsible for this improper delay in the delivery of an important cable, and can he say whether there is greater chaos in his Department than in any Government Department?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: If the hon. Member desires, I will ask the foreign Government why the delay occurred?

    SUB-POST OFFICES, LONDON.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Postmaster-General if it is the intention of his Department to close any of the sub-post offices in London; and, if so, can he state on what plan he proposes to deal with this matter; and whether, in view of the increase of soldiers' allowances, pension, and other similar work at post offices, he will carefully consider the matter before closing any offices?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: It has been necessary during the War to close a number of sub-offices in London, and the matter is considered whenever an office falls vacant, the points to which the hon. Member draws attention being invariably allowed due weight. There is no scheme in view at present for closing offices which are not vacant. Recent paragraphs in the Press to a contrary effect had no foundation.

    REGISTER HOUSE, EDINBURGH (DEED COPYING).
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the system of copying deeds into volumes by handwriting is still in force in the Register House, Edinburgh; whether the Government intends and, if so, when, to carry out the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, which reported in 1915, that these volumes should be typewritten by women, thereby releasing men for work of national importance; and whether men so released will be pensioned as recommended by the Royal Commission?
    Mr. MUNRO: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative so

    1301
    far as the General Register of Sasines is concerned. In the Register of Deeds and the Extractors' Office typewriting has already been in part introduced; and the question of extending it to the Register of Sasines is receiving consideration. It is complicated by the necessity of considering the interests of the engrossing clerks whom the new system would throw out of employment on the one hand and the cost of carrying out the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the other hand.
    Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is three years since the Report was issued?
    Mr. MUNRO: I am quite aware of that.

    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether the principle of self-determination will be now applied to Ireland; and, if so, whether he will state the means by which he proposes to ascertain what form of government this self-determination implies and what steps he will take to realise the policy thus indicated?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I can make no statement on the subject.
    Mr. LYNCH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why, in these days of economy, the good principles of the Prime Minister are not for home consumption as well as for foreign export?
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to make a statement as to advice which he has received from the United States pointing out the urgency of a settlement of the Irish question; and whether communication will be given to Members of this House of all messages, official or semi-official, emanating from high quarters in Washington bearing on this subject?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As to the second part, no messages of the kind alluded to have been received.
    Mr. LYNCH: Have no semi-official messages been received from Washington? Even on this Irish question, has not the time come for the open air and sunlight of honesty?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, on this question as on everything else.

    EDUCATION BILL.
    Mr. WINGasked the Prime Minister what the immediate intentions of the Government are in hastening or otherwise the passing of the Education Bill into law?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have repeatedly stated that it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Bill as rapidly as possible.

    TITLES DEPRIVATION ACT (COMMITTEE).
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he will give the names of the Committee appointed under the First Section of the Titles Deprivation Act; whether all the material available for its consideration has been prepared; how many persons with British titles are concerned in the material submitted to the Committee; and whether a Report from the Committee is to be expected shortly?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The names of the Committee are as follow:—

    The Lord Chancellor,

    The Lord President,

    The Marquess of Lansdowne,

    The Marquess of Salisbury,

    The Marquess of Crewe,

    The Earl of Desart,

    The Earl of Beauchamp,

    The Viscount Sandhurst,

    The Lord Newton,

    The Lord Stamfordham,

    The Lord Sumner, and

    The Lord Carnock.

    Inquiries are being made with a view to ascertaining what material will be available for the consideration of the Committee; until that is known, the number of persons concerned cannot be definitely stated, nor can a date be named for the Report.
    Mr. KING: Is there any particular reason why no Member of this House has been appointed on this Committee, and all Members of the other House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not aware of that, jut I think that the Committee was appointed in strict accordance with the Bill which was passed in this House.
    Mr. LYNCH: Why on that Committee have there been appointed men who in the House of Lords defended these enemy principles?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware of that. In any case, I suppose that Members of the House of Lords have got the same right to express their opinions as the hon. Gentleman.

    LIQUOR TRADE (STATE PURCHASE).
    Mr. McKINNON WOODasked whether the Reports of both the English and the Scottish Committees appointed to consider the terms of purchase of the liquor trade have been completed for some time; if so, why they have not been circulated to the Members of this House; and when these Reports will be circulated?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Report of the English Committee was received some time ago and the question of publishing it was deferred until the Reports of Scottish and Irish Committees were presented. I understand that the Scottish Committee have presented their report to the Secretary for Scotland recently, but the Irish Committee have only just completed their inquiry. I cannot, therefore, make any statement at present.

    RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE (REPORTS).
    Sir WILLIAM PRIESTLEYasked the Prime Minister if he has received any further Reports from the Whitley Reconstruction Committee; and, if so, will he authorise their publication?
    The MINISTER for RECONSTRUCTION (Dr. Addison): Two further Reports relating to the application of the first Report to less organised industries and to Workshop Committees have been received. They are now under consideration. I am not at the moment in a position to make any statement as to publication.

    ARMY PENSIONERS.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked if, as the continued rise in the price of food is pressing on many old Army pensioners, the Government will afford them some relief by an increase in the amount of their pensions?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards service pensions I would refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on the 7th December last in reply to the hon. Member for Leeds. For the rest, the question of the pensions payable to the pensioners of former wars is receiving the consideration of the Government.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Will the Government consider the matter, in view of the pathetic letters that one is receiving, and see that something is done to keep these men out of the workhouses?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have said that the Government are considering it, but that must not be regarded as in any way an undertaking in the matter.

    PENSIONS MINISTRY (PREMISES).
    Mr. HOGGEasked whether the War Cabinet upheld the decision of the First Commissioner of Works in refusing to commandeer the premises of the British-American Tobacco Company for the purposes of the Pensions Ministry; and, if so, for what reason?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): Matters of accommodation are referred to the War Cabinet Committee on Accommodation, of which I am chairman, and not to the War Cabinet, unless it so decides. The British - American Tobacco Company placed at the disposal of the Government five floors of their premises, free of charge, which are now occupied by the Canadian Forces Record Office and the Ministry of Pensions. The value of the premises occupied is estimated at £6,500 per annum. There was, therefore, no necessity to commandeer these premises, and arrangements were made to allow the company to retain a certain portion of its offices to carry on its business. The War Cabinet Committee has expressed its gratitude to the company for the generous manner in which it has come forward to help the Government.

    WAR CABINET.
    Mr. HARCOURTasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Ministers state that they are unable to say why certain executive action has or has not been taken on the ground that they

    1305
    cannot answer for the War Cabinet; whether it is intended that the War Cabinet should be a body irresponsible in the ordinary Parliamentary sense; and, it not, whether, in cases when individual members of the War Cabinet are unable to be in their places owing to pressure of work, the representative of the Department will either be furnished with an answer or be instructed to say that in the public interest no answer can be given, and not reply that he is ignorant of the facts?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The responsibility of the War Cabinet and the method of dealing with discussions in Parliament are precisely the same as in the case of any other Cabinet.

    STOCK EXCHANGE.
    Mr. H. MORISONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that under the temporary regulations of the Stock Exchange no security is a good delivery unless accompanied by a declaration that it has remained in physical possession in the United Kingdom since the 30th September, 1914, and has not, since the outbreak of war, been in enemy ownership; whether such regulation applies to stocks and shares which are put up for sale by public auction; and, if not., will he consider the advisability of extending the regulation to such sales?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Treasury have frequently drawn public attention to the fact that it is most undesirable in the national interests that securities which have not been in continuous physical possession in the United Kingdom since 30th September, 1914, should at present be sold in this country either through the Stock Exchange or through any other channels. The Treasury's wishes have, in general, met with loyal acceptance. The importation into this country of securities (other than maturing bonds and coupons payable in the United Kingdom) is prohibited under the Prohibition of Import (No. 21) Proclamation, and for a long time past no securities could be imported from neutral countries without a declaration that they had not been in enemy ownership since the outbreak of war.

    POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
    Sir J. SPEARasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the
    1306
    desirability of increasing the interest on deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank from 2½ per cent to 3 per cent., in order to encourage thrift and provide additional funds for national purposes?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This matter has been frequently considered, and, for the reasons set out in paragraph 11 of the Report of the Committee on War Loans for Small Investors, I do not think it possible to make any change.

    GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
    Mr. WATTasked whether the Treasury now pays for all the purchases of the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Ministry of Munitions, or whether these Departments pay their own accounts for purchases made and services rendered; if the latter, whether this is a new system since the beginning of the War; and what check the Treasury has over these Departments in the proper expenditure of the money of the nation?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: In accordance with the established system of public finance, the Admiralty, War Office, and Ministry of Munitions are responsible for the expenditure incurred by them. As regards Treasury control, I would refer the hon. Member to the reports of the Select Committee on National Expenditure and to my statement of the 14th instant.
    Mr. WATT: Do these Departments make contracts quite freely without the Treasury intervening in any way?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There is a certain amour t of control. It is quite obvious that I cannot define what it is.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division> whether he can state why private soldiers are not included in the provisions of The Hague agreement as to the release of British prisoners of war from Germany and their internment in Holland?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): The reason is that the German delegates at The Hague refused the proposal out forward by the British delegates that privates should be included in the transfer, to Holland of prisoners who had been over eighteen months in captivity.

    HOUSING LOANS (IRELAND).
    Mr. FIELDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the increased expenditure incurred by county boroughs and urban sanitary authorities in the carrying out of schemes for the better housing of the working classes since the commencement of the War on account of the higher rate of interest charged by the Treasury on loans granted for the purpose and the increased cost of materials owing to war conditions; whether he is aware that, in the case of a housing scheme recently completed by the Blackrock Urban District Council, for which a loan of about £21,000 was sanctioned by the Local Government Board about the commencement of the War and the money advanced by the Treasury, the higher rate of interest charged on the loan, together with the increased price of materials, represents a charge on the rates of close on £200 per annum for a period of sixty years over and above what the cost of the scheme would have been at the pre-war rate of interest and cost of materials; and, seeing that any addition to the rents at which the houses are now let to meet this extra cost would be prohibitive, whether provision will be made by the Government in the proposed scheme for national housing after the War by which a money Grant would be made available to relieve the increased burden imposed on the local ratepayers by reason of the War in this and similar cases throughout Ireland, so that those public authorities who have realised their obligation in regard to the better housing of the working classes would be at least in no worse position than others who have deferred action in a matter of such vital importance to the welfare of so large a section of the community?
    Mr. DUKE: Except in Dublin, only a few small loans have been granted to urban authorities in Ireland for housing purposes since the outbreak of the War, and these were granted at a slight increase on the rate of interest for loans made prior to the War. The cost of materials has also increased owing to the War conditions. I am informed that the consequent increase chargeable in the case of the Blackrock Urban District Council, to which the hon. Member refers, is about £180 per annum. As to the last inquiry in the question, I would refer to my answer to a question by the hon. Member on the 22nd October.
    Mr. FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman give further consideration, as this is a very peculiar case, and will he let me have a copy of that reply?
    Mr. DUKE: I will, Sir.

    SECONDARY TEACHERS (IRELAND).
    Mr. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the registration council of secondary teachers in Ireland on the 13th October last sent in to the Lord Lieutenant, for his approval, a draft of their rules revised in accordance with the requirements of the Irish Government; that the council have not yet received the rules approved by the Lord Lieutenant nor even a formal acknowledgment of receipt of draft; that the whole work of the council has been held up for more than a year by delay in dealing with these rules; and what is the cause of the present delay in returning the rules?
    Mr. DUKE: The regulations were submitted for approval on the 13th October. I regret there has been some delay in dealing with the matter. The regulations deal with questions of a complicated nature which require careful consideration owing to a difference as to the functions of the Intermediate Board and the council in the matter of keeping and controlling the register of intermediate teachers. The draft regulations are now before the Intermediate Board, and when their observations are received a decision will be given without any avoidable delay.

    DUBLIN RECONSTRUCTION (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACT.
    Mr. H. LAWasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what precautions have been taken in the rebuilding of those portions of Dublin that were destroyed during the rising of 1916 to ensure due regard both to architectural considerations and to the rehousing of the poorer classes of the people?
    Mr. DUKE: I would refer the hon. Member to Section 2 of the Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916. Under this Section the city architect is empowered to exercise full control over the rebuilding of houses in the destroyed area, and he may require such

    1309
    reasonable alterations to be made as respects the design, line of frontage, and materials, as he thinks proper; and may require the plans, sections, and elevations to be amended accordingly. The Local Government Board always satisfy themselves that plans have been approved by the city architect in cases where they issue certificates to owners of houses who desire to borrow money from the corporation under Section 3 of the Act. The plans for the rehousing of the poor outside the destroyed area have also to be submitted to the Local Government Board.

  ARMY MEDICAL OFFICERS (FRANCE).

    COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
    Major DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Committee of Inquiry presided over by General Sir Francis Howard has now concluded its labours; and whether it is proposed to give any information to the House of Commons with regard to the questions upon which it has deliberated and reported?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The Report has been received and is now under consideration. I am not in a position to make any statement.
    Major CHAPPLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether be will institute periodic conferences of medical officers representative of the staffs in the various commands, in order to discuss matters connected with the efficient and economical administration of military hospitals?
    Mr. FORSTER: There exists already a special machinery for this purpose in the War Office, which is in close touch with the hospitals and staffs of commands, and in communication with the Food Controller.

  AIR SERVICES.

    ANTI-AIRCRAFT (WHOLE-TIME) WORK.
    Major DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to replace night-time volunteers engaged upon anti-aircraft work by whole-time mm on active service; whether the efficiency of the anti-aircraft service in London is prejudiced by the employment
    1310
    of part-time men; and, if not, whether, having regard to the demands of the Army on the man-power of the country, the services of part-time men can be continued?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: In regard to the first and second parts of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given on the 23rd instant to my hon. Friend the Member for Hag-gerston. The answer to the last part is in the negative for the reasons given, except to the extent to which it is proposed still to employ part-time men for duties which can be performed efficiently by them. These part-time men are not volunteers, but belong to the Naval Volunteer Reserve, and are paid as such.

    GOVERNMENT WOOL STORES, DUBLIN.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will take steps to improve the conditions of the male and female workers in the wool stores taken over by the Government in Dublin; if he is aware that the wages paid to workmen are 27s. 6d. and women 15s.; and if he will see that they receive the same rates as are paid in England for similar work, namely, men £3 and women 30s. and a bonus on output?
    Mr. FORSTER: I understand that the rates of pay for unskilled labour employed in time wool store taken over by the Department in Dublin are 27s. 6d. to 29s. 6d. per week for men and 15s for women, for a forty-four hour week, and compare favourably with those paid for similar classes of work by other trades in that locality. Overtime is paid for hours worked in excess of forty-four.

    HOSPITALS IN SCHOOL BUILDINGS.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what steps are being taken by the military to vacate school buildings and adapt other buildings for hospitals; if he is aware that in Plymouth, owing to the commandeering of certain schools by the Army and the Admiralty, there are 9,041 children working on the double-shift plan, and only doing in three years what was formerly done in two years; and if, with the need for more, rather than less, education for

    1311
    young people after the War, the Government will treat this matter as urgent and make the necessary arrangements
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The desirability of surrendering these schools is recognised, and a promise has been given that they shall be surrendered as soon as the military authorities can arrange to forego their use. Up to the present the need for extra beds has had to be met constantly, and it has not been found possible to make other arrangements.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the hon. Gentleman say if his reply applies to Johnston Terrace School, in the Devonport Division, which has been taken by the Admiralty for the sleeping accommodation of men, with the result that temporary premises have had to be rented by the Education Committee, and Ford School converted for the first time into a double-shift school?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say. Perhaps my hon. Friend will communicate with me privately.

    ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT, DEVONPORT.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Admiralty to the effect that all permanent employés in the clerical departments at home dockyards in receipt of a salary of £250 per annum and under are to receive art additional bonus; that boy writers of eighteen are to receive an extra 9s. per week and boys under eighteen 7s. a week; and that women clerks are to have an additional 4s. per week; and will he say whether it is the intention of the War Office to make the same concessions to the clerical staffs employed by the Army Ordnance Department at Devonport and Bull Point?
    Mr. FORSTER: Instructions are about to be issued as regards the further bonus for permanent employés of the clerical departments under the War Office, in accordance with the recent awards of the Conciliation and Arbitration Board.

    SOLDIERS' PAY.
    Mr. KINGasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware
    1312
    that the increased pay to soldiers was granted on the ground that increased cost of living rendered the increase necessary in the vital interests of wives, children, and dependants; and whether, in view of soldiers in the Non-Combatant Corps having the same family tics as other soldiers, he will state why the increase is not payable in their cases?
    Mr. FORSTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The increase was given, as I have previously explained, mainly to raise the pay of the fighting troops.
    Mr. KINGasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether proficiency pay has been paid to men entitled to it in the Non-Combatant Corps; and, if not, under what Order or Regulation is it withheld?
    Mr. FORSTER: Men of the Non-Combatant Corps are not entitled to proficiency pay.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the fact that ninny of the soldiers at the front have not yet received the full amounts of the newly increased pay, and that in the circumstances of the War many men and officers arc not yet aware of the statement made in this House when the increased pay, allotments, and allowances to dependants were dealt with, will he state the reason for the delay in this matter and the steps to be taken, if any, to disseminate the information desired?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have been inquiring into this matter and have not succeeded in finding anything to corroborate the statement that many men and officers are not yet aware of the increase of pay, etc., granted to soldiers. An Army Order was published on the 4th December last and sent to every unit, and all commanding officers were enjoined by special order to give attention to it. They are fully aware that it is their duty to make it known to the men.

    AIR RAIDS (STEEL HELMETS).
    Mr. MURRAY MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether steel helmets are supplied to every member of the special constabulary force within the Metropolitan area; whether the existing supply is kept at the headquarters of each district;

    1313
    whether members of the force, when summoned during an air raid, have to make their way from their homes to their headquarters exposed to risks often as great as those to which they are exposed when actually on their stations; and, seeing that it is the duty of the Government to protect them, so far as possible, from these risks by providing helmets, will lie see that every member of the force is so provided with a helmet which he may take to his own home?
    Sir G. CAVE: A supply of helmets is kept at each police station for the use of such members of the regular and special constabulary and air raid relief parties as may be sent out when the guns are firing or likely to fire. Helmets are not issued to the regular or special police as part of their general equipment, and the circumstances would not justify such a general issue.
    Mr. MACDONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men are exposed to serious risks when summoned on the occasion of an air raid in going from their homes to the headquarters?
    Sir G. CAVE: No doubt that is a statement of fact, but the men have warning some time before the raid occurs.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE.
    Mr. WILESasked the Home Secretary whether, in the public interest, he will consider the advisability of granting to the rank and file of the Metropolitan Police Force the privilege of conferring together from time to time with regard to matters affecting their work and conditions of service, as well as allowing them to make collective representation to the authorities; and, if so, will he authorise the use of the library or some other convenient room in the various stations for this purpose?
    Mr. GILBERTasked if he has yet come to any decision as to allowing representative committees of the Metropolitan Police to approach the Chief Commissioner in order to lay before him any grievances or to discuss matters affecting both officers and men in the service?
    Sir G. CAVE: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave to a question on this subject on the 28th February, 1917.

    PRESS CENSORSHIP.
    Major NEWMANasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to an article that appeared in the daily Press of the 23rd instant, purporting to forecast a policy of interference in the right of the United Kingdom to the self-determination of its political life whether under a united parliament, a union, or a federation on the part of a foreign legislature; and did this article come before the Press Censor or any similar body before publication, or are the activities of the foreign correspondents of the papers in which the article appeared exempt from their authority?
    Sir G. CAVE: I presume the hon. Member refers to an article in the "Times" on the subject of the feeling in the United States with regard to the Irish Convention. The article was submitted to the Press Bureau, but, in accordance with the announcement made by the Foreign Office in the Press on 12th December, 1915, the Press Bureau stated that the responsibility for publication must rest with the publisher.

    ALIENS.
    Major HUNTasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that numbers of Russians and Poles in this country are advocating revolution; and whether the police have direct instructions to attend the meetings at which they speak and arrest them if they break the regulations of the Defence of the Realm Act?
    Sir G. CAVE: No meeting of Russians or Poles in connection with a movement of the character described has come to the knowledge of the Metropolitan Police; if such a meeting should he held the police will be ready to deal with it.
    Major HUNT: Did not M. Litvinoff, the agent for the Revolutionary Government in Russia, exhort British workmen at Nottingham to go in for revolution here, and are not some of these Russian Jews really German, and are these Russian Jews and Poles still allowed to come freely into this country?
    Sir G. CAVE: No one is allowed to come to this country without full inquiry and without giving the fullest possible information.
    Major HUNTasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Russians and Poles now in this country are taking the businesses and occupations of our own men called up for service; whether these businesses and occupations will be restored to our men after the War; and can he say when Russians and Poles of military age will be compelled either to join our Navy or Army or to go back to their own country?
    Sir G. CAVE: I would refer the Lon and gallant Member to the Convention entered into with the late Russian Government wider the Military Service (Conventions with Allied States) Act.
    Major HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentle-man answer the first part of the question?
    Sir G. CAVE: No; it is too general for me to answer, but if my hon. Friend will state any particular case I will endeavour to ascertain the facts.
    Major HUNTasked the Home Secretary if he can say how many people of alleged Swiss nationality have been granted permits to reside in the United Kingdom since the beginning of the War?
    Sir G. CAVE: No such permits to reside are required by aliens of Allied or neutral nationality.
    Major HUNT: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to ascertain whether some of these people claiming Swiss nationality are not really German-Swiss or German aliens, and is he aware that there is a great feeling that a great many of those people are really German?
    Sir G. CAVE: Aliens have to register, and are required to produce satisfactory proof of nationality.

    IRISH CONVENTION.
    Major NEWMAN (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether he has requested leave to address the Irish Convention to place before them the views of the War Cabinet, and, if so, whether Defence of the Realm Regulation 27A will be suspended, and a full report of the proceedings made available to the public?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have received no nom n whatever of this question. As a matter of fact the Prime Minister is re-
    1316
    ceiving some of the members of the Convention and is doing so in the hope that some good may result from it—I am sure with the full approval of the House of Commons.
    Major NEWMAN: What I want to know is will the proceedings be made public—that is the really important part of the question?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I should think that very unlikely and very undesirable.

    ENEMY SUBMARINES.
    Mr. FIELD (by Private Notice)asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state what measures are being adopted to further safeguard, by convoy or escort, merchant vessels and sailors engaged in the cross-Channel traffic between Ireland and Great Britain?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is manifestly not possible to make public the measures adopted for protection of shipping in the Irish Sea, but the hon. Gentleman may rest assured that the subject is one which is constantly engaging the attention of the Admiralty, and that, so far as our resources allow, every possible step is taken to provide for the safety of the cross-Channel traffic.
    Mr. FIELD: Am I to understand from that reply that greater precautions will be taken in future for the protection of vessels?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: All I can say is that, within our resources, every means are taken and will be taken.
    Mr. BOLAND: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the statement put into his hand by the hon. and learned Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) referring to the loss within the last few days of a slop on this line, and may I ask whether special precautions will be taken to safeguard them in the future?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have the statement before me, and, although I have not the official detailed report, the telegraphed report shows that the statement is true that a vessel was sunk by submarine quite recently. As regards the last part of the question, within the means at our disposal every possible step is taken to safeguard them

    Anthrax.
    Sir J. SPEARasked the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he will state the number of cases of anthrax in cattle for the year ending 29th September, 1917, and the number occurring in the previous year, and also the number of outbreaks of swine fever during the same periods; and whether the serum treatment of pigs is of value and should be extended?
    Mr. PROTHERO: Five hundred and sixty-seven cattle were attacked by anthrax in the year ended 29th September last, as against 583 in the previous year. The corresponding figures of outbreaks of swine fever are 2,531, as against 4,424. The serum treatment of pigs is undoubtedly of value; but until a trustworthy system of vaccination against the disease can be brought forward, the Board is not prepared to make the serum treatment compulsory. As a voluntary method it is now being carried out to the fullest possible extent.

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    James Rolston Lonsdale, Esquire, for the County of Armagh (Mid-Armagh Division).
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Ordered, "That the Proceedings on the National Registration (Amendment) Bill, if under discussion at Eleven of the clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

  NATIONAL REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  NEW CLAUSE.——(Consent of the Director-General of National Service to Prosecutions and Provision as to Continuing Offences.)
  (1) A prosecution for an offence under this Act or under the principal Act shall not be instituted in England except with the consent of the Director-General of National Service.
  (2) Sub-section (3) of. Section thirteen of the principal Act shall have effect as if there were inserted at the end thereof the words "after conviction."—[Mr. Hayes Fisher.]
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I beg to move '' That the Clause be read a second time."
  The object of this Clause is to minimise as far as possible prosecutions for offences against the Act. It was rather feared by some, when considering the Bill in Committee, that prosecutions might be initiated 'very freely, and heavy penalties imposed against young people and discharged soldiers who had omitted' to register under the Act, merely because they were unfamiliar with the Act, and with the necessities of conforming to it by registering their names. I have endeavoured to meet that view, although it is not shared here, and to minimise as far as possible prosecutions for any omissions under this amending Bill, or, indeed, under the principal Act. There have been, as a matter of fact, very few prosecutions under the principal Act. They have been very rare. I have said before, and I repeat again, our object is not to exact fines. Our object is to get the most perfect and the most accurate register
  1334
  you can possibly get with as few prosecutions as you can have, and as. few penalties as possible, and if this Clause is accepted by the House, no prosecutions can De set on toot except with the consent of the Director-General of National Service, who is not likely to consent to a prosecution for a mere act of negligence or a mere act of omission on the part of a discharged soldier, or lad, or anyone else. If this Clause is acceptable, as I think it will be, the House may feel safe not only as regards discharged soldiers, but as regards persons generally who honestly have not made themselves acquainted with the Act or with the necessity of registering under it.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I have studied the Order Paper to see what Amendments the right hon. Gentleman has put down to carry out the pledges he gave in Committee, and when I consider that this Amendment is designed by the right hon. Gentleman to meet the objections that were offered, not for a few minutes, but for some hours, against the heavy penalties which might fall upon children and which would fall upon discharged soldiers and sailors for breaches of this Act, I am very much surprised indeed that the right hon. Gentleman should think that this in any way fulfils the pledges that he gave. Because what were the criticisms that were directed in connection with the matters raised by this Amendment in the Committee stage of the Bill? The objections were that the Bill was drawn to include people of every age between fifteen and sixty-five, including a considerable number of discharged soldiers. It was pointed out that the Bill departed from the principle observed in the original Act under which a census was taken, forms were left at the individual households, and they were merely required to be filled up; whereas in this amending Bill no census is taken, but the duty is placed upon all those affected by the Act themselves to obtain forms, fill them up, and return them to the appropriate registration authority in a few days. It was pointed out that a soldier might return from, say, Mesopotamia, and know nothing at all about this Act, and yet within seven days after landing in this country, it may be wounded or permanently disabled, if lie did riot register he would be subject on conviction to a fine of £5, and a continuing penalty of perhaps £1 a day for breaches of the Act. It was pointed out that that was the way in

  1335
  which you were going to treat discharged soldiers under this Bill, and the same objection was made to the heavy penalties which, as the Bill was introduced, would fall upon school children of the age of fifteen years.
  What was the attitude that the right hon. Gentleman took in committee? And let me remind the House that the amazing provisions of this Bill are only just beginning to be realised. It is not that many people may not accept the principle, but there has been a widespread ignorance of the amazing machinery which is suggested for carrying out the object aimed at in the Bill. There was on the Committee stage the most serious. objection taken to the whole question of the penalties which would fall upon people who did not observe the provisions of this Act, and the right hon. Gentleman, not once in the course of that discussion, but again and again—and his words were echoed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board—promised, in view of the strong feeling that was expressed in Committee, to consider between then and the Report stage the whole question of the penalties upon young persons, upon discharged soldiers, and upon everyone affected by the Bill. I speak in the recollection of the Members who were present at the Committee stage, and I am sure the general feeling was that the right hon. Gentleman intended, if not entirely to remove these penalties, at least to mitigate them very greatly. Has he done so? He has not. He brings forward a new Clause dealing with this question, and the only difference between his new proposals and the proposals of the Bill is that the consent of the Director-General of National Service has first to be obtained by the local authorities before any prosecution is commenced under the provisions of this Act. That has not adequately met the views expressed in Committee, and has riot adequately met the objections to the extraordinary machinery proposed. I suggest that there will not be a few instances of a breach of the provisions, but that where you are placing upon 1,000,000 persons between the ages of fifteen and seventeen and a half the day the Bill passes the duty of registering themselves, of finding out where the local authority is, of getting a form and filling it up and returning it within seven days, and, where you are doing that, too, in regard to the whole of the soldiers
  1336
  as they are discharged from the Army or disbanded, it is quite obvious that, not in individual cases, but in thousands of cases, there will be breaches of the provisions of this Act, particularly so because cry young person, as every discharged soldier, if he changes his address is committing an offence, unless be registers the new address with the local registration authority, and if the discharged soldier or any other person fails to report any change in his occupation he is committing an offence.
  4.0 P.M.
  It is not sufficient to say that you protect the persons affected by this Bill from prosecution by first requiring the assent of the Director-General of National Service. The numerous hotels that are daily being commandeered for the different Government Departments would certainly be necessary for the Director-General of National Service to consider all the eases that will reach him from every registration area over the whole of the country; and the fact remains, therefore, that after this new Clause, which the right hon. Gentleman has moved, is incorporated in the Act, it will still render liable to heavy penalties all persons, certainly over eighteen years of age, whether they be discharged soldiers or others, providing that the local registration authority has first obtained the assent of the Director-General. I think this proposal to penalise by unusually heavy penalties. and by continuing penalties, persons who may through sheer ignorance even of the existence of the Act, fail to carry out these provisions within the very limited time allowed—such penalties for such trivial offences!—is alien to the spirit of modern legislation in this country and repugnant to the feeling of the country. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman how he is going to redeem the promise that he made to consider the question of penalties? He did not dispute—
  Mr. FISHER: The only promise I made was to consider the whole question of penalties. I have considered it, and have made a great concession to those who criticised the Bill from the point of view of the hon. Member. He may not be satisfied, but I am inclined to think that the Amendments will meet with the approval of the House.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman will really forgive me if I

  1337
  say that his interruption is not relevant. I will try to show him why. If the right hon. Gentleman reads his own words in the OFFICIAL REPORT he will find that he did not, when dealing with the question of these penalties, dispute the criticisms or arguments or the positions taken up by the critics that the penalties were very heavy, nor did he meet the feeling that the large fine in the first instance, and a continuing penalty afterwards, of £1 per day for each day the offence continued, would mean, or might mean, an intolerable injustice upon the men and women upon whom they fall. He did not dispute this. He never said, in reply to the critics, when they pointed out how heavy were the penalties, that they were too heavy. He met the arguments of the critics by saying: "I will carefully consider the whole question' of penalties, and will see what can be done by the time the Report stage is reached."
  Mr. FISHER: The hon. Member has invited me to explain this to the House. I did say that I would consider the question of penalties. I have done so. I think even the hon. Member will admit that the proposals I make very largely minimise the amount of penalties that can be taken from those who have committed a breach of the law; because, after all, the continuing penalty is only provided for "after conviction,'' and will only be put upon those who really are contumacious, and who deliberately, after conviction, go on defying the Act of Parliament.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman is heardly treating the points that I am making fairly—if he will forgive me saying so—because he made no allusion whatever, in moving this new Clause, to the second part of the Clause. Everyone thought, on reading the original Act, that the penalty was first a fine of £5 and then a continuing fine of £1 per day for each day that' the offence was continued. Anyone reading the original Act would take that meaning, that the continuing fine could not be imposed until after conviction. The only difference, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman makes in the Amendment that he now moves is to make it clear that the continuing penalty of £1 per day only counts after the defendant has been convicted of the offence—that is to say, a man is summoned for not having given his new address, or new occupation, or
  1338
  for having failed to register, or for any other breach of this Act, and he may now, if the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is incorporated in the Bill, be fined £5 for the offence, and after conviction be subjected to a continuing penalty of £1 per day. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will for a moment think that I have misinterpreted the effect of his Amendment, or what will be the position after it has been incorporated in the Act. So that the position stands like this: You are making a new statutory crime for failure to observe duties which most people, nay, a great number of people, affected by this new Bill, will not know they have to observe. You are making these statutory crimes fall upon discharged soldiers and sailors, may of whom will not know, within seven days of their reaching this country, that they have to observe the Regulations of any such Bill. For these trumpery offences, committed in ignorance, you are imposing upon people, guilty in this technical sense, fines up to £5, and a continuing penalty of £1 per day. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that that is carrying out his promise to reconsider the whole question of penalties, I can only say, with much respect, that I entirely disagree from him as to what reconsideration means. In face of the very strong feeling expressed in the House during the progress of the Bill through the Committee stage, I very much hope that the Bill will not be allowed to go through with these extraordinary penalties falling upon people who ought first to be protected against such penalties. I believe this provision, when it is generally known, will meet with general reprobation.
  Mr. KING: There are just one or two points of this new Clause which have not been touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Lanark. In the first place, the fact that under the principal Act there were very few prosecutions and fines quite natural, and a fact that we might have expected, because as has been pointed out, this was a Census, a single registration was sufficient, and then the thing being done, and once done, by everybody in the Kingdom, no offences arose. It was, therefore, quite reasonable to expect that there would be very few offences in any case. Now, however, you are dealing with quite a different matter. You are making a continuous

  1339
  liability to registration, and a great number of people will have forgotten that two and a-half years ago they registered in the first instance; they will have forgotten that they have cards, and they will not know where their cards are. In many cases they will have altered, not only their residence, but employment, and will be quite unaware that they arc liable to register the change. I believe it is most unlikely that you will have this register kept up-to-date, and therefore correct. I believe it is far more than the public are prepared for at the present time, or than the officials are prepared to carry out. Therefore I am sure you are going to have a great number of failures, perhaps inevitably so. It may be the case that in certain areas it is very desirable, in the view of the Ministry of National Service, to get particulars of certain industries and certain conditions of those industries. Emergencies may arise making this information very desirable to be had, and for the registration to take place. It may be found that this information is not forthcoming. Is the Ministry of National Service going to put in force its powers of fining everybody? Are notices to be issued that unless everybody registers they will all be fined? That is what is quite likely to happen. That is, if any real use is to be made of this register.
  Another matter Candidly, I should have preferred that it should be the leave of the Local Government Board and not the leave of the Ministry of National Service which should be taken before prosecution is undertaken. I do not trust any Government Department very much at the present time. I think I trust the Ministry of National Service least of all. To give the Local Government Board its due, I think it has really been carrying on its work, on the whole, quite as respectably as we could expect under the circumstances. Therefore, I would point out, because it might be possible to alter this, of which we are complaining, in another place. As to continuing offences, I readily admit that the second part of this Clause is a most distinct. improvement and gain. I sincerely thank the President of the Local Government Board for Sub-section (2) of this new Clause. Here arises a point which might have the attention of the Secretary for Scotland, or the legal authorities at the present time on the bench opposite.
  1340
  This new Clause refers to Section 13 of the principal Act. Why does it not refer to Section 9 of the new Act? It amends the continuing offences set up by the principal Act. Does it really cover the continuing offences set up by Section 9 of this Act? If the President of the Local Government Board is considering the whole question of offences and fines created by this Act, why does not he introduce the Amendment into Section 9 of the Act we are now considering? I hope the Secretary for Scotland sees the point which I am raising. If he does not, I hope he will read my remarks tomorrow in the OFFICIAL REPORT, because I believe he will then see that there is a real doubt and difficulty in this connection. If he does so, I am sure he will consider the matter of setting it right in another place. I trust we may have some reply from the Secretary for Scotland. Even if he does not think fit to reply, I trust that at any rate he will consider the points I have made.
  Mr. MORRELL: I was not in the House when the right hon. Gentleman moved this Amendment, and I do not know on what grounds he thinks it is sufficient to fulfil the pledges he gave during the Committee stage. It certainly does not seem to me to be quite adequate to the purpose, and I still hope he will reconsider the subject. This question of penalties is the most important matter that arises under this Bill. In many ways this measure is unprecedented because it puts on unofficial persons the liability of carrying out official duties. In the past when you took a Census or made up a register you always had official machinery for the distribution of the forms, and it has always been their duty to fill up the forms and return them, and they were liable for these duties. The initiative in all other legislation lay with the official persons, but in this Bill the initiative lies with private persons. It is the duty of a private person to discover whether he has to be registered, and this duty is imposed upon lads of fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen years of age who have to get their own forms and fill them up. Therefore it is very necessary, as this duty is imposed upon private persons for the first time in the history of legislation, to see that these persons shall not be subject to heavy penalties. I would like to know whether it is intended to carry out the pledges which have been given with regard to lads

  1341
  under eighteen. The pledge of the right hon. Gentleman was quite specific on this point. He said:
  "We shall mould the Bill so as to he perfectly certain that no penalties in the ordinary sense of the word shall be so imposed"
  What the right hon. Gentleman meant by the "ordinary sense of the word" I do not know. What I think the House desired was that no penalties whatever shall be imposed upon boys of eighteen and less for not filling up these register forms correctly. I should like to know whether this new Clause is intended to cover the pledge as regards boys of less than eighteen. As regards discharged soldiers, it does not seem to me that this is really a reconsideration of the subject at all. The penalties remain as before, and the discharged soldier or sailor who fails to carry out the difficult duties imposed by this Bill is still liable in spite of this new Amendment to a fine not exceeding £5, and if the offence continues to a continuing penalty of per day. I think that is an outrageous penalty to impose upon men of this character who have already served their country. When the right hon. Gentleman said that he w as going to reconsider that point I understood that he was going to reconsider the amount of the penalty. I submit these penalties are out of all proportion to the offence that will arise, and I would like to know if the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to get rid of the continuing penalty for continuing offences considering that there is no criminal motive in it, and to see that the penalties do correspond with the offence that is committed under this Bill.
  Mr. KILEYI would like the President to give the House a little more information as to the delegation of power to the Director-General of National Service. Does it mean that the Director-General can transfer these powers to his representatives in all the districts of England? If that is so, it somewhat modifies the sense of security which some of us might desire. I am quite willing that this measure should be administered by the Director-General and his office where he has a legal staff to advise him, but if he intends to hand them over to the local authorities in every little district in the country it alters the state of affairs very considerably. I would like to express my regret that the President has not seen his way to go more deeply into the under-
  1342
  taking which he has given, for he made us understand that he was inclined to modify the penalties which were mentioned in the Bill. I would suggest even now that he should consider whether for the first offence a nominal fine of 40s. would not be sufficient, and then he can take a larger penalty for a repetition of the offence. That would be more reasonable and would satisfy me.
  Mr. WATT: This Clause deals entirely with England, but I wish to ask what arrangement has been made for dealing with similar cases in Scotland. These penalties are of a serious nature, and some of us object very strongly that they should be placed on discharged soldiers and sailors who have done their bit. The consent of the Director-General in England has to be obtained before the prosecutions can be taken, but I want to know what provision is made for Scotland in regard to prosecutions for any breach of this measure. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to explain that the Lord Advocate's protection deemed to be sufficient, but I wish to have a statement in the House to that effect so that the soldiers and sailors who are resident in Scotland will have the protection which I desire.
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): During the Committee stage apprehensions were entertained and expressed to the effect, in the first place, that there might be unnecessary prosecutions by virtue of this provision; and, in the second place, that penalties of undue severity, continuing penalties, might be imposed upon a class of persons whom I shall term unwitting sinners against the Bill. These fears were expressed, and my reply is that ray right hon. Friend, by the new Clause he proposes, has quite fairly and completely met the apprehensions which were then expressed. The first point was that there might be unnecessary and indeed vindictive and reckless prosecutions. I think there is a complete answer to that suggestion, inasmuch as my right hon. Friend provides that the consent of the Director-General of National Service shall be necessary for a prosecution under this Bill. The point has been raised as to whether the Director-General will personally consider every case—and I am quite unable to say, but one must remember that he is placed in the same position as the Attorney-

  1343
  General and the Lord Advocate, and as, I think, in some cases, the Director of Public Prosecutions. Whether or not these officials personally consider each case, we must remember that those officers are responsible to this House for the manner in which they administer their Departments. How the Director-General of National Service may exercise these powers is riot for me to say, but what I think is sufficient for the House is that here we have full control over him, and he is responsible for the exercise of his discretion. It seems to me that the exercise of such discretion on his part affords a complete answer to the case put by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse), of a soldier coming back from Mesopotamia, being ignorant of this Act, and being prosecuted under it. Does my hon. Friend suggest that in such a case it is likely that the Director-General of National Service would consent to a prosecution? If he does not think so, then his case is met, and if he does think so I would like to hear him say so.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Objection was taken not only on the point which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but also to the fact that the penalties were far too heavy and preposterous to attach to these offences, and how does the right hon. Gentleman contend that this proposal meets the pledge given to consider the extent of the penalties?
  Mr. MUNRO: I should have much preferred it if my hon. Friend had answered the question I put to him, but instead of doing that he has asked another question. I will just say, in reply, that the hon. Member is assuming that the maximum penalty will be inflicted in all cases. Now I think that is quite an unwarrantable assumption, because magistrates will exercise a fair discretion. As to the fear of unnecessary prosecutions, I think that point has been met.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I do not think so.
  Mr. MUNRO: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his own opinion, but he has adduced no arguments in support of it, and I have adduced arguments in support of my contention. On the question of whether or not a penalty might be inflicted on a person guilty of a continuing offence, although unaware of it, that
  1344
  point has been completely met by the second part of the Clause which my right hon. Friend has proposed, and therefore I do not need to labour that point. By virtue of the second part of this Clause, no person will be penalised for the commission of a continuing offence until he has been fully apprised of his guilt—that is to say, until he has been convicted. Any subsequent breach, therefore, will be totally inexcusable and will be committed with full knowledge that he is breaking the provisions of an Act of Parliament. I submit that these two arguments have been completely met, and I should rather have expected my hon. Friend to show a little gratitude towards the President of the Local Government Board, instead of looking a gift horse in the mouth as he has done, and criticising this proposal with some asperity and some unreasonableness. The legal point raised was with regard to the omission to refer to Section 9 of this Bill, as well as to refer to Section 13 of the principal Act. I have looked into that point, and I do think that it is unnecessary that I should read the Official Report of the hon. Member's speech to appreciate the point. I think it is a bad point, for this reason—I read that my hon. Friend is a lawyer as well as a politician—he will find that the two Acts are to be read as one, and, further that Clause 13 in the original Act is the only Clause which imposes penalties for a continuing offence. There is no other Clause which imposes a penalty for a continuing offence, and, inasmuch as the two Acts are to be read together, I think the Clause entirely meets the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. If he desires it, however, I will have it looked into further, and if it should be found that I am wrong and that he is right I have no doubt that my right lion. Friend will take steps to have the matter put right in another place. With regard to the point that my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Watt) has raised as to Scotland, the matter stands really as he anticipates. Protection is accorded in England by the words, "with the consent of the Director-General of National Service." In Scotland, as my hon. and learned Friend well knows, the Lord Advocate is responsible for all prosecutions which take place. I see, according to the provisions of this Bill, that the prosecutions, if any are to take place in

  1345
  the Sheriff Court. The Sheriff Court prosecutor is a public prosecutor, responsible to the Lord Advocate who, again, is responsible to this House. Accordingly, the protection which is afforded by this Bill to any persons liable to prosecution in England is afforded to any persons liable to prosecution in Scotland by the existence of the Lord Advocate and his office, and the right which he enjoys to direct and control and be responsible for all prosecutions which are public prosecutions, and there are practically no others, as my hon. and learned Friend knows. Probably he will be content with the assurance that I have given in public that everyone in Scotland will be protected by virtue of the immemorial right of the Lord Advocate to control and direct prosecutions, to direct them if he chooses, and also to refuse to direct them if he so pleases.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the next Clause—"No discharged sailor or soldier shall be subject to penalties under this Act"—standing in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanarkshire (Mr. Whitehouse)—there are two Clauses in the Bill which impose penalties. One imposes penalties upon employers and the other upon employés. I presume that the hon. Member's Clause is intended to apply to employés only. In that case, it ought to come as an Amendment to Clause 6. With regard to the next Clause—"No penalty under this Act shall fall upon any person under the age of eighteen"—also standing in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanarkshire, think it is already provided for in the Bill.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: No, Sir.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member -will look at Clause 6, Sub-section (4), as passed in Committee, he will see that it reads
  "If any person over the age of eighteen fails to comply with the provisions of this Section … he shall be liable."
  Does that meet the hon. Member's point?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: No, Sir. May I address you on a point of Order? This is a matter about which very contrary views were expressed in Committee, and
  1346
  no final decision was reached, even by the representative of the Government. Subsection (2) of Clause 2 reads
  "Sections 5, 6 and 13 of the principal Act (which relate respectively to the completion and correction of forms, to the right to certificates of registration and to penalties) shall have effect as if references therein to forms included a reference to forms under this Act."
  The result of that Section is to transfer the penalties from the original Act to this Act in the following way. Section 13 of the principal Act relates to penalties. It sets forth the penalty for failing to fill up a form. The result of this Section being in this Bill is to make the person who fails to fill up a form under Section 13 of the original Act liable to a penalty under this Act, the two Acts being construed together. This point was argued at very great length in Committee, and this view was put forward again and again. It was in connection with the arguments that took place on this Section that a promise was given for consideration. I am not suggesting that the case I made was admitted. I speak with great respect, but after careful examination I feel quite sure that the effect of Sub-section (2) is to bring the penalties from the original Act and to put them also into this Bill. That is why it becomes necessary to move the new Clause standing in my name, and I now rise to move it. There is no disagreement on the point of principle between the Government and myself. The Government in Committee admitted that if this Clause did not, certain other Clauses in this Bill did, impose penalties upon persons between the ages of fifteen and eighteen. They modified the obvious Clause that imposed these penalties under this Bill by inserting the age "over eighteen," but they left this Section with which I am now dealing unattended to. The whole difficulty that has arisen is duo to the very involved and obscure, and, I think, faulty draftsmanship of Subsection (2) of Clause 2. It is a very difficult and subtle point of law for lawyers, and I should be very grateful for the opinion of my right hon. and learned. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, but to a layman trying to understand it without a life's experience of legal terms behind him it is especially difficult. The House and the Government were agreed

  1347
  that no penalties under this Bill should fall upon persons under the age of eighteen, and that was the policy that was declared by Parliament when the original Act was going through this House. The right hon. Gentleman again and again said that he would remould the Bill in order to make it quite certain that no penalty would fall upon any persons under the age of eighteen. We have, therefore, no point of principle to argue. We are reduced to the consideration of the question whether Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 brings the penalties from the original Act and puts them into this Bill. I can express the matter in its simplest form by reading Sub-section (2) as though it referred to Section 13 of the principal Act only, omitting needless words—
  Section …. 13 of the principal Act … relating to penalties shall have effect as if reference therein to forms included a reference to forms under this Act."
  I think it is quite obvious—I only want to be shown where I am wrong—that if you are going to construe the penalty Clause in the original Act side by side with the provisions of this Bill, you do bring the penalties, no less than the duties of filling up the forms, into this Bill. I know that the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers feel that the Section as drawn is an extraordinarily difficult Section. It is most involved, but if it does not mean what I submit that it does mean, I suggest that it has no meaning whatever. It, therefore, becomes necessary to make provision against penalties falling upon young persons between the ages of fifteen and eighteen. I want to put one question to the Secretary for Scotland or to the President of the Local Government Board. May I ask what is the objection to putting the simple, clear, non-ambiguous words of my Clause into this Bill? The right hon. Gentleman himself, not once or twice, but half a dozen times in Committee, said that it was his intention so to remould the Bill as to prevent any penalties falling upon persons under the age of eighteen because that was the deliberate policy of Parliament, expressed after a very long Debate on the principal Act.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have followed the arguments of the hon. Member, and I think he is answered by Section 13 of
  1348
  the National Registration Act, 1915, which is limited to persons over eighteen years of age. No penalties, therefore, could be imposed upon persons under eighteen years of age. The penalties must be imposed either by this Act or by the original Act.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Yes.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Very well. They are limited by Section 6 of this Bill to persons over eighteen years of age, and under the original Act they are limited to persons over the age of eighteen by Clause 13. Therefore, the provision the hon. Member is seeking to obtain is already in the Act and in the Bill.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I address you on a point of Order? The last Clause of the present Bill states that the two Acts shall be construed together. That is why I say, with great respect, that it brings the penalties from the one Act to the other. May I also say that in another Clause of the present Bill definite penalties were imposed upon persons under the age of eighteen, and that was modified by the addition of words in Committee?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is what I say. The hon. Gentleman has been met by the alteration made in Committee.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Except as to the last Clause, which says that the two Acts shall he construed together.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, and if you bring in the other Act, the penalties under Clause 13 are limited to persons over eighteen.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I move my first Clause: "No discharged sailor or soldier shall be subject to penalties under this Act"?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have already ruled that Clause out and told the hon. Member the place where it must be dealt with.

  NATIONAL REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of Classes of Person to be Registered.)
    The register formed under the National Registration Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), shall, in addition to the persons mentioned in Section one of that Act, include the following persons:

    (a) All male persons who, not having been liable on the fifteenth day of

    1349
    August, nineteen hundred and fifteen, to register themselves under the principal Act by reason that on that day they were under the age of fifteen years or were members of some part of His Majesty's Naval Forces or of His Majesty's Regular or Territorial Forces, have, before the passing of this Act, attained the said age, or ceased to be members of any of His Majesty's Forces, or thereafter attain that age or cease to be members of His Majesty's Forces;

    (b) All male persons who, having been registered under the principal Act, have subsequently joined any of His Majesty's Forces, and who before the passing of this Act have ceased or thereafter ceased to be members of any such forces,

    sand all such persons shall be deemed to be persons required to register themselves under the principal Act, and when registered shall be deemed to be registered under the principal Act.
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the word passing," and to insert instead thereof the word "commencement."
    The Bill, as drafted, made it the duty of every person coming within the scope of it to be registered either immediately or within a period of twenty-eight days after the passing of the Act. The Government undertook that the necessary forms should be placed at all the principal post offices, and should be there available as soon as possible for those whose duty it was to be registered. It is well known to all Members of this House that the Stationery Office and the Post Office have unusual and exceptional difficulties at the present time. There is very great difficulty in getting matter printed and in getting it delivered in large quantities after it has been printed. We are informed by the Stationery Office and the Post Office that it is improbable that they will be able to place these forms at the principal post offices at the time of the passing of this Bill into law. Therefore, I am going to move an Amendment which will bring this Bill into operation, not at its passing, but at a period of twenty-one days after its passing, in order that a longer time may elapse which will give the Post Office and the Stationery Office an opportunity of obtaining and delivering the forms so
    1350
    that they may be available for all those who are called upon to register themselves. It would be unfair to call upon anybody to register himself and then that he should find the forms will not be available for some considerable time. I ask the House to consent to several formal drafting Amendments, so that we may carry out the Amendment I shall move in substance at the end of the Bill.
    Mr. KING: I think this is a good idea put forward by the Local Government Board, and I consider I am entitled to say that, because it meets a point which I raised on the Second Reading, that there would be difficulty, both at the Post Office and at the Stationery Office, in obtaining the forms. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is taking sufficient time for this purpose. I understand he is taking twenty-one days after the passing of the Act.
    Mr. FISHER: Yes.
    Mr. KING: Although the Stationery Office may say they can supply the forms in twenty-one days, my experience is that every person—every Government Department—that offers to supply a thing within a certain time most assuredly takes twice the period to do it. No doubt, in this matter, the Department will secure priority for their demand, but I think we should have a definite assurance that the forms will be available twenty-one days after the passing of the Act.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In paragraph (b) leave out the word "passing," and insert the word "commencement"—[Mr. Fisher.]

    CLAUSE 2.—(Duties of Persons to Register.)
    (1) It shall be the duty of every male person who, by virtue of this Act, is liable to register himself under the principal Act, or who was liable to register himself under the principal Act but has failed so to do before the passing of this Act, to cause himself to be registered, and for that purpose before the appointed date to obtain, fill up, sign, and send or deliver to the local registration authority, by post or otherwise, a form containing the particulars mentioned in Section four of the principal Act or such of those particulars as may be prescribed.
    The appointed date for the purposes of this Section shall, as respects persons who come within the operation of this Section on the date of the passing of this Act, or within fourteen days thereafter, be the twenty-eighth day after that date, and in the case of any other persons be the fourteenth day after the date on which they come within the operation of this Section.
    (2) Sections five, six, and thirteen of the principal Act (which relate respectively to the completion and correction of forms, to the right to certificates of registration and to penalties) shall have effect as if references therein to forms included a reference to forms under this Act.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1) leave out the word "passing" ["failed so to do before the passing"], and insert the word "commencement."—[Mr. Fisher.]
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words,
    "together with particulars as to whether he is or is not a person who has been discharged from His Majesty's Forces, and if lie is such a person as to the portion of the forces from which he was discharged, and as to such further matters (being matters with respect to which it is desirable that information should be given by persons on registration with a view to their obtaining advantageous employment) as may be prescribed."
    It was pointed out at an earlier stage of the Debate that it is desirable that a discharged soldier or sailor should be able to make the local registration authorities aware that he was a discharged soldier or sailor with a view to his getting any benefits from the registration as such I think that that was quite a good suggestion. In the form in which the principal Act was passed there is nothing to reveal the fact that the man is a soldier or sailor or that he has any particular qualification, and the words which I propose to acid to this Sub-section will, I think, supply that omission. He will he able to state if he is discharged from the Army, whether he is accustomed to deal with horses, whether he has any mechanical skill, whether he knows anything about aeroplanes, whether he is a motor driver or transport driver, and whether he is possessed of any qualification making him particularly useful for certain employments, and when an employer
    1352
    applies to the local registration authorities for extra hands at certain times when there is a good deal of pressure in his business, he will be able to look over the local authorities' list and ascertain whether in that particular area there are men with special qualifications who may be exceedingly useful to him in carrying out his particular class of work. If the discharged soldier or sailor avails himself of the opportunity of giving information as to his special qualifications for certain work, then I shall have carried out my promise that this form of registration may be a very useful means of securing to the discharged soldier or sailor some preference, it may be, in the way of employment.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I want to make a suggestion to the President of the Local Government Board with regard to this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman will remember what caused him to promise consideration of this point on the Committee stage. It was indicated to him that when you had registered a soldier under the Bill there was no legal power to ask him if he was a discharged soldier, and the forms would riot disclose whether he was or not. But the right hon. Gentleman has gone very much further and in a vague way, and I want him to consider a new proposal which, although it cannot be acted upon at this stage of the Bill, might be introduced in another place. The original Act defines the questions you may ask; you may inquire as to the man's name, residence and age, whether he is single or married, the number of his dependants, his occupation, the name and address of his employer, the nature of his employer's business, whether the work he is employed on is Government work whether he is skilled, if he is willing to perform any work other than the work he is doing at the time, and, if so, the nature of that other work. It was clearly necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to introduce an Amendment giving the power to ascertain whether the registered person was a discharged soldier, but he has gone further and indicated a number of questions to he put. I suggest to him that the powers contained in the original Act if applied here would supply all the information required, and therefore, instead of introducing this very vague form of words, "such further matters, being matters in respect to which it is desirable that information should be given by

    1353
    persons on registration"—words which might cause a great amount of friction—the nature of the questions proposed to be put to discharged soldiers should be set forth in this Bill precisely as they are stated in the original Act of Parliament. We know that this provision is going to affect some hundreds of thousands of persons, and it might well happen that questions put under this vague wording would be resented. If the right hon. Gentleman will accept my suggestion, I think it will make for the much smoother working of the Act in its practical application.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In Subsection (1), paragraph (2), leave out the word "passing" ["date of the passing of this Act"], and insert the word "commencement."

    CLAUSE 3.—(Duty of Certain Persons to Notify Changes of Occupation and Loss of Certificates.)
    (1) If any male person at any time registered under the principal Act changes his profession or occupation as registered in his certificate of registration, he shall within the appointed time notify the change to the local registration authority, and for that purpose send or deliver to that authority, by post or otherwise, his certificate of registration with his new profession or occupation noted thereon, and there shall be supplied to him a fresh certificate of registration, and the change shall be noted ill the register.
    For the purpose of the foregoing provision any male person registered under the principal Act at the date of the passing of this Act whose profession or occupation at that date does not correspond with his profession or occupation as specified in his certificate of registration, or if his profession or occupation is not as specified with his profession or occupation as on the date when he was registered, shall be deemed to have changed his profession or occupation as on the date of the passing of this Act.
    The appointed time for the purpose of the foregoing provision means, in the case of a person who changes or is deemed to have changed his profession or occupation on or at any time within twenty-one days after the date of the passing of this Act twenty-eight days from that date, and in the case of any other person seven days from the date of the change.
    (2) Any male person who has lost his certificate of registration, whether he is required by this Section to send his certificate of registration to the local registration authority or not and whether the loss occurred before or after the passing of this Act, shall, as soon as he becomes aware thereof, notify the loss to the local registration authority of the district in which his place of residence is situate, and for that purpose obtain, fill up, sign, and send or deliver by post or otherwise to that authority, notice in the prescribed form of the loss, and there shall be supplied to him a fresh certificate of registration.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "as registered in his certificate of registration," and insert instead thereof the words "so that it ceases to correspond with his profession or occupation as specified in a certificate of registration or, if his profession or occupation is not so specified, with his profession or occupation as on the date when he was registered."
    In Sub-section (1) paragraph (2), leave out the word "passing" ["at the date of the passing"], and insert the word "commencement."
    At the end of the same Sub-section, leave out the word "passing," and insert the word "commencement."
    In paragraph (3), leave out the words "twenty-one" ["twenty-one days"], and insert the word "fourteen."
    In the same paragraph, leave out the word. "seven" ["seven days"], and insert the word "fourteen."
    In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "passing" ["occurred before or after the passing of this Act"], and insert the word "commencement."—[Mr. Fisher.]

    CLAUSE 4.—(Amendment of s. 7 of the Principal Act.)
    (1) Sub-section (1) of Section seven of the principal Act (which provides for the notification of changes of address) shall have effect as if for the words "within twenty-eight days" there were substituted the words "within fourteen days," and for the purpose of the said Sub-section any person registered under the principal Act at the date of the passing of this Act whose place of residence at that date does not correspond with his place of residence as specified in his certificate of registration shall be deemed to have changed his place of residence as on that date.
    (2) Sub-section (2) of the said Section seven (which provides for the registration of unregistered persons arriving in the United Kingdom) shall have effect as if for the words "within twenty-eight days" there were substituted the words "within fourteen days," and for the purpose of the said Sub-section any person who arrived in the United Kingdom before the date of the passing of this Act shall be deemed to have arrived in the United Kingdom as on that date.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the word "passing," and insert the word "commencement."
    In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "passing," and insert the word "commencement."
    5.0 P.M.
    In the same Sub-section, after the word "Act," insert the words "and who on or before that date had not given notice of arrival in accordance with the provisions of the said Sub-section."—[Mr. Fisher.]

    CLAUSE 6.—(Power of Constables, etc., to Require Production of Registration Certificates.)
    (1) Every male person who was required to register himself under the principal Act or who is liable by virtue of this Act so to register himself shall—

    (a) if notice requiring the production of his certificate of registration has been given in accordance with the provisions of this Section, produce his certificate to the person, and at the time and place, specified by the notice; and

    (b) whether any such notice has been given or not, on demand by any police constable, or any person duly authorised in that behalf by the Director-General of National Service, either produce his certificate of registration or give particulars as to his name, address, age, and occupation.

    (2) Any police constable or other person authorised to demand the production of certificates may, for the purpose of the performance of his duties under this Section, at any reasonable time enter any factory, workshop, or business premises and may inspect and take copies of any certificates produced to him.
    (3) Any notice for the purpose of this Section may be given by any person authorised in that behalf by the Director-
    1356
    General of National Service, and either by delivering it to the person who is to be required to produce his certificate, or by leaving it at that person's place of residence, or by publishing it or causing it to be published at the place where that person is employed in such a manner as is reasonably calculated to bring it to his knowledge, and any such notice may specify a time (not being less than three days from the date of the notice), and a place (not being other than the residence or place of employment of the holder of the certificate), at which the certificate of registration is to be produced.
    (4) If any person over the age of eighteen years fails to comply with the provisions of this Section or gives particulars which are false in any respect, or obstructs any person in the exercise of his powers under this Section, he shall be liable on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out paragraph (b).
    This is the paragraph which gives power to any police constable, without any special authority, to stop any person between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five and demand his certificate of registration, or, failing its production, that that person shall give an account of himself, that is to say, name, address, occupation, and so forth. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fisher) does not need ma to remind him that a. prolonged debate took place on this question on the Committee stage of the Bill, and for my own part I have no intention of merely repeating for the sake of repeating the arguments used on that occasion. I regard this provision, however, as being one of the greatest defects in the machinery which is suggested in this Bill to carry out its object. I want to remind the House that no such provision was inserted in the original Act, and the only analogy to this provision is the analogy which is afforded by the Clause in the Military Service Acts, which gives a somewhat similar authority to authorised persons. It was said, I think, by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, on the last occasion on which this matter was under discussion that that had worked with great smoothness. I think he said that, and I think, at the same time, he drew a very moving picture of the affection that we all have for the police and of what a very important feature they were in the con-

    1357
    solidation of our social life, and so forth. I must remind the House that the only analogy which we have for this provision has certainly not proved to be acceptable to the public in the way in which it has been worked. I assume that I should be out of order if I made more than a passing reference to that matter, but the right hon. Gentleman will well remember the outbreak of indignation that took place at the police interference at railway trams, at meetings, and with the general public in the ordinary discharge of their peaceful duties. That is the only analogy we have.
    The right hon. Gentleman now proposes in this civil Bill to give every policeman the right to stop every person between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five. It is a provision which, I repeat, is alien to the traditions of this country, and one which is bound to give rise to a great deal of friction and trouble if it is attempted to be carried out. As the Bill stands at this moment this provision affects also females between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five. but I gladly hasten to point out that the right hon. Gentleman promised at least to mitigate the matter to the extent of not allowing this police provision to apply in the case of females between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five. I believe he is going to give effect to his promise by an Amendment which he will move at a later stage of the proceedings to-day, and I may therefore assume that the power of the police in this matter is to be limited to males who are affected by the Bill, between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five. Although I think it was very offensive that it should have been suggested, and contemplated that time provision should apply to females, I think it is scarcely less offensive if it applies to males, and I wholly question the necessity for introducing this provision. It was, I repeat, not introduced in the principal Act. Why then introduce it into the amending Act? This paragraph that I am moving out of the Bill is extraordinarily wide in its application. The policeman has not to get special authority for his action, and the result is that any male person within this wide limit of ages may be accosted in the street, in any place of public entertainment, on the railways, at the station, or lie may even be visited at his private house by the police in order that it may be seen that he is registered.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Walsh): No.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I do not wonder that lion. Members smile when I repeat this amazing provision, and I think they smile because they really do not believe that such a provision is within the pages of this Bill. When they look at the Bill, however, they will find that there are no limitations placed on the place or the manner in which this provision is to be carried out. We may, for instance, have great round-ups at the railway station as was done in the ease of the Military Service Acts and which, let time House remember, were only stopped because of the gust of indignation which burst out in connection with those military round-ups which, by the way, proved to be wholly unnecessary. Are you seriously going to allow similar police round-ups to take place on all male civilians between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five? Is it really believed that the people of this country will welcome—notwithstanding the tribute which everyone pays to the manner in which the police, on the whole, do their duties—this kind of police supervision extending to almost all the public relations of life, so that on any day, in any place, and in practically army circumstances, we may be stopped, either as individuals or in crowds, by the police, required to produce our registration certificates, and, if we have no registration certifications, required to give an account of ourselves? I believe this is an extraordinarily drastic proposal. It is a proposal of the nature which we generally refer to as Prussianism, and I think you will find such a proposal existing in no other country except those countries which we do not usually hold up as examples for us to copy. The Secretary for Scotland well knows that when I dealt with this matter before he thought, as he himself said, that I was getting rather bankrupt of adjectives in describing this Clause, and I am bound to say that I think there was a measure of truth in what he said. I certainly do not propose on tins occasion to attempt to use adjectives which would adequately describe the character of this proposal. I believe that to state this proposal and to get it understood by the public is the surest method of finding out whether it is approved or not. I believe it is a proposal which, if you put into force in any wide form, would meet with general condemnation by all those who arc affected by it. It introduces a very disturbing clement in our social life, and

    1359
    it threatens—and I think this is a very serious point—the very harmonious relations which have existed in the past between the public and the police, for certainly the public are not going to welcome this kind of government through the instrumentality of the police. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to make any concession in this matter or not. Happily, he has promised to remove women from the operation of the proposal, and I am sure he will carry cut his pledge to do so: but I ask him to go further and to abolish this remaining proposal, so far as it affects men. In doing so he will certainly not hinder his Bill, but will, in my opinion, improve it.
    Mr. KING: I beg to second the Amendment. I do so on grounds different from those which have been brought forward by my lion. Friend (Mr. Whitehouse). I do not say that I do not agree with him, because I think he is quite justified in making a speech and adducing the grounds that he has done. My point, however, is this: Is it really going to help you to give to any police constable, at any time, without any special authority, or without any written instructions, the power to stop any man, woman, or child—that is what it is in the Bill—and to make inquiries? That is the way to make the Bill unpopular, and I want this Bill, if it is going to be passed, to be popular. Moreover, is it going to give the assistance which you want; is it going to produce the information that you require? T offer my advice, believing it to be sound, and I say that if I had been drafting this Bill I should have allowed anybody to make inquiries at the house or the place of employment about any person. Really, it is very much easier and much more reliable, if you want to find out information about a young boy, to go to his home and ask for it there, rather than to stop him in the street, because if he is up to a lark he will tell you just the wrong thing. The information you will get from the boy as to age, place of employment, and all you want to know, will not be as reliable as if you go to his parents at home. In the same way, I should have given opportunities for getting the information wherever a boy or a girl is employed, and that would have been quite unobjectionable. No one would have raised any difficulty about it, but this vague power to a policeman to stop anybody anywhere
    1360
    is naturally resented. I will just call to mind the great number of speeches from ' Members who are quite respectable and who do not often intervene in Debates which were made on the Committee stage—I remember very well the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. A. Allen) making a most vigorous protest, on behalf of Scotland, I think, as to the feelings that would be excited in Scotland by this provision I am not., therefore, without hope that this paragraph will really be dropped.
    Mr. FISHER: The hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse) said the effect of this Bill has only to be stated for it to be condemned. Well, I will state it. The effect of it is that, first of all, everybody between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five must register, and, being liable to be registered, he is then liable to be accosted by any policeman—that is quite true—at any time, and called upon to show his certificate of registration. If he cannot show his certificate of registration he has to give particulars as to his name, his address, his age, and his occupation—and the hon. Gentleman said that this is alien to all the traditions of this House and of this country!
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me—
    Mr. FISHER: No; I will not give way. The hon. Member for Mid-Lanark said that this is alien to all the traditions of this House and of this country—
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Hear, hear!
    Mr. FISHER: That this is really an insult to the people which they will bitterly resent, and which may produce serious trouble, and riots.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I did not say that.
    Mr. FISHER: I turn round and look at the condition of this House when this Clause is being discussed. There are exactly fifteen Members in the House, arid yet the House has had the fullest possible notice that this Clause had passed through Committee, and that it was going to be discussed in the House to-day. There is not a single Member on the Front Opposition Bench, there is not a single member of the Labour party present, except my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board. We are the great defenders of the freedom and liberty of the people, and there are fifteen Members present out of a House consisting

    1361
    of 670 Members! Really; it is difficult to deal seriously with the hon. Members of the House who use this extravagant language about a mild proposition of this kind. When it is said that it is alien to the traditions of this House and of this country, let the House remember that it is only a short time ago since we passed the Military Service Act, 1916, under which any policeman is empowered to demand of anybody a certificate of exemption granted under the principal Act, particulars as to the authority by which it was granted, and the ground upon which it was granted. If anybody resists the policeman and says, "I will not produce the certificate. I do not intend to comply with the law," he is subject, not to a minimum penalty of £5 as provided by this Bill, but to a penalty of £20 and to imprisonment for three months. The hon. Gentleman debated this question at great length with his Friends when we were in Committee. There were then, within the precincts of the House, 128 Members, and the hon. Member, after all his inflammatory oratory, only succeeded in taking eleven Members into the Lobby with him. So that twelve Members in all stood up for these great rights and the freedom and liberty of the people. Every hon. Member of the House knows perfectly well that this provision is a very mild copy of the Section in the Military Service Act, 1916, and that the whole design of this Bill is not to persecute or penalise, but to get the most direct form of register we can possibly obtain. As a means of doing that, it is absolutely necessary to have some such penalties attached to those who break the law, and it is absolutely necessary that we should be able to demand from those who ought to be registered and who ought to have their certificate a proof that they have a certificate, that they have duly complied with the law, and have carried out the simple registration imposed by an Act of Parliament.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: The right hon. Gentleman called attention to the fact that on the last occasion when this matter was discussed 116 persons voted against and twelve for the exclusion of this provision from the Bill. He also called attention to the fact that only fifteen or sixteen Members are present here now. One reason why the Division took the form it did was that those who voted for the retention of this provision in the Bill had not heard the Debate. The right hon.
    1362
    Gentleman admits that this makes an alteration in our existing law and practice. He says that it is applying to persons in civil life the principles of the Military Service Act, as if the Military Service Act could he set up as part and parcel of our normal legal system, and that it is going on for ever. That Act was passed for the period of the War.
    Mr. FISHER: 'This Bill is limited to the period of the War.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: It may be, but the probability is that it will be perpetuated for a long time after that. You are establishing by the Registration Bill a register of the people; you are establishing an organisation for that purpose. Do you think that the. National Register is likely to be abandoned once it has been introduced? It is introducing quite a. new system into our civil life. It will be said by those, who favour it that it will be necessary to keep it up to date, of course for the philanthropic purpose of finding employment for particular persons after the War is over. For the first time we are to become registered people, just as. people are registered in Germany. This provision puts on the police a duty that they have never had to perform hitherto. It is their duty to see that the register is. correct, and for that purpose to accost people in the street whom they see and do not know, and who may be complete strangers to them, for the purpose of finding out whether or not they are on the register. It means that persons going to a strange place, being seen by a policeman, it will become the normal duty of the policeman to find out whether that person is or is not a registered person. Of course, if the Clause is never put into operation, there need be no complaint about it; but if the policeman, who begins: by only occasionally exercising his power, gradually gets accustomed, as police authorities all over the world do get accustomed, to exercising these powers, and he makes it part of his normal duty, people moving about the country will be liable to be accosted in this manner. An amount or feeling will be developed of which the right hon. Gentleman has little conception at the present time. He has taken the same line which his subordinate took in the last Debate of pouring contempt on the attempt of ourselves to get some of our own opinions accepted. Much of our freedom has gone, and when the War is over we shall find that we have very little

    1363
    freedom left for which to fight. This is a new power which the police have not hitherto exercised.
    Mr. FISHER: Nobody was bound to register under the Act of 1915; that was a voluntary, Act.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: This gives a new power, and therefore puts a. new duty on the police which they have never exercised before. It brings them more into the normal life of the people than they were formerly. It is a strengthening of the police system, which might develop into a system of espionage on the ordinary life of our people. That is against all our traditions, and an undermining of our liberties. It is a thing which, if understood by the people of this country and if it is exercised, will arouse a good deal of feeling which may, I hope, lead to the complete abolition of this kind of legislation as soon as the end of the War enables us to resume our normal life. I am not one bit less opposed to the provision than when the right hon. Gentleman's assistant poured contempt on what we had to say in the last Debate. I believe as strongly to-day as I did then that it is an evil principle to put into a Bill dealing with the civil population, whatever it may be with regard to the Military Service Act. It will create resentment of which the right hon. Gentleman thinks very little now, but of which he will hear more later on. I therefore support the Motion of my hon. Friend, and shall go with him into the Lobby against this provision.
    Mr. MORRELL: I confess I was much disappointed to hear the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill. We were taunted a little while ago by the Secretary for Scotland on the fact that we had not shown sufficient gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for the concessions he has made upon this Bill. I quite freely admit that, in deference to the criticisms urged on the Committee stage, there have been new Clauses and Amendments introduced which, so far as they go, are an improvement, but I cannot see why we should show particular gratitude when the Government make concessions in deference to a sense of justice and to real criticisms. I am quite ready to make any sort of recognition which the Secretary for Scotland thinks adequate as regards, the concessions
    1364
    already made, but I am sure he will not require us to continue our gratitude in respect of the speech to which we have just listened from the President of the Local Government Board. When he made that speech the right hon. Gentleman must have been aware that on the Committee stage there was a considerable expression of opinion from all quarters that this was an undesirable, and in some respects unprecedented provision in a Bill of this kind. It is quite true there were few people who went into the Lobby against the Government, but everybody knows that if you go into the Lobby against the Government on a Bill of this sort you are always likely to have your motives misrepresented, and you are supposed to be interfering with the prosecution of the War. How this Bill will assist the prosecution, of the War, nobody has yet explained. We might have heard some better arguments in support of this almost unprecedented provision than the cheap sneers and taunts of the right hon. Gentleman to the people who speak up for liberty in this House, who are at present a very small body. It is quite true that in. this House we are a small body, but is the right hon. Gentleman so sure that those who administer the present law, who are always engaged in suppressing free speech and putting people into prison for all sorts of small offences at the present time in the name of patriotism, have, at the present moment outside this House, a very large body of public opinion behind them? I am not at all sure that even the small despised minority who speak in this House for liberty have not a better hacking than some of the right hon. Gentlemen who occupy the Treasury Bench. I decline to be put clown by such taunts, cheap sneers and the kinds of arguments we have had addressed to us.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that this provision, which gave the right to policemen to stop unoffending people in the streets and to demand of them all sorts of particulars about themselves, their occupations, their birth, their wives, and what not, was absolutely necessary to the construction of this register. The plea of necessity is a very old one. If the right hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to read his own Bill he would know that it is unfounded in this case. It would be perfectly easy to work the Bill without giving any such power to the police as is here proposed.

    1365
    It would be perfectly easy to insist, under this Bill that if you gave proper notice to any individual to produce his certificate, as is suggested in one of the Clauses, that they should have power to inquire at the house regarding that individual. But why should they have the power of rousing up in the public streets, and stopping anyone who conies along? That is an unprecedented power, and is the kind of thing which, before the War, was always known as Prussianism in Germany and elsewhere. It is the kind of power which tended to make life for those who travelled or lived in Berlin a perfect nuisance. It is the kind of power which enables policemen to bully and victimise an unpopular man or woman in their neighbourhood. It is the kind of power which puts the private citizen under the heel of the Government and under the heel of the police. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should defend a power of that sort, because he belongs to the extreme section of a party which has always gone in for this sort of autocratic power for the Government and has always desired it. What is surprising is that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, who belongs to a different section of political thought, should have thought it necessary on the Committee stage to support this provision, as he apparently does. We asked what precedent the right hon. Gentleman could give us for a power of this kind which enabled the policeman to go up to a man or woman in the street and demand of them all these particulars and ask that they should at once produce their registration card. What precedent did the right hon. Gentleman give? No other precedent than the Military Service Act, which was passed as an emergency measure in order to fasten Conscription very quickly upon the country.
    How has that Act worked? We all know, in spite of what the Secretary for Scotland said on the Committee stage, that the rounding up which took place, created intense resentment, rightly, as I believe, among a large section of the people. The Secretary for Scotland appeared to have enjoyed being rounded up and stopped in his business, shut up in a pen and kept there until he had satisfied the police that he was a registered and well-conducted person. People will object to being stopped in that way and cross-examined by the police. It
    1366
    is unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman could not give us any better precedent than that of the Military Service Act. After all, in the case of that Act, you might advance the plea of necessity. You might say that it was necessary in order to make Conscription effective, when it was being adopted for the first time, that you should give these exceptional and extraordinary powers to the police, but no one suggests that there is any such urgent necessity for complete registration in the case of this Bill. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fisher) tried to make out that this was not so much a military measure, but rather one for advancing the interest of the people in time of peace, for collecting vital statistics and things of that sort, than for regulating the supply of recruiting. For that purpose we are to have this sort of power given to police constables in order to stop ordinary men and women in the course of their peaceful duties. The unhappy part of this Bill is that it has the trail of the criminal law and the policeman all through it. It is an attempt to make a register not in official ways by proper means, but by imposing penalties on private persons. If the right hon. Gentleman really wanted to make a correct and effective register his right course was to have it prepared by officials, as the Census is prepared. The worst way of all is to make a register by the imposition of penalties on people who do not understand these forms, and one of the worst of these penalties is that to which ordinary men and women will be subjected of heir g stopped and accosted and worried about their private affairs by policemen.
    Mr. KILEY: If laws are made it is the duty of this House to give proper authority to those concerned with their administration to see those laws carried into effect, and on that point most people are agreed that proper power should be given to those concerned. But the point of disagreement, as I understand it, is in the methods to be adopted. Shall this House give into the hands of any police constable absolute power at any moment he chooses to stop any individual who is coming along and ask him, "Have you got your registration card? If you have not, or even if you have, come with me to the police station so that I can verify it."
    Mr. FISHER: It does not say that.
    Mr. KILEY: It did not say that in the Military Service Act, but I know of cases where a man was accosted by a policeman

    1367
    and although he produced his military service card he was taken to the police station and kept there for several hours till the police verified his statement. It is to prevent the repetition of such cases that I am intervening. I suggest most seriously whether some form of words could not be put in which would limit the possibility of what I have just described. Would it not be possible to limit it to a police constable of the rank of sergeant? I am bound to say, with considerable knowledge of the police, that I find the vast majority of them are thoroughly reliable men, but now and again you come across a case in which that description could not be applied. Why should the public be at the mercy of any constable at any time, under any circumstances, to be worried and bothered whenever he chooses so to do? If the right hon. Gentleman would place some limitation upon the drastic powers which he proposes to give to the police, I am sure he would remove a good deal of misgiving.
    Mr. WATT: I desire to enter my protest against this Sub-section being passed into law. It is a most drastic measure to pass. I gather from the speeches that have been made that the subject was well thrashed out in Committee, but I was not present then and I have seen this Subsection for the first time to-day. It gives the right to any police constable to interfere with any person within the ages of fifteen and sixty-five at any time and in any circumstances, ostensibly to ask him whether he is registered, but in reality to bully him with that excuse. This power is not in the principal Act. Why then is it to be put into this amending Bill? Was it found that the principal Act was a failure in administration, and was not drastic enough? Were the powers which were given there not sufficient to elicit the information which was necessary? The right hon. Gentleman has constantly told us that the principal Act was a great success and that no fault was to be found with it at all, and that this was simply an extension of that measure to rope in discharged soldiers and those who have arrived at the age of fifteen since the passing of that Act. But when they come to amend the Act they take this most drastic power of enabling a policeman on any occasion and in any circumstances to come up to any of us and demand our registration papers. The right hon. Gentleman always looks upon that action
    1368
    of the constable as if it were properly done in order to get information regarding registration. My hon. Friends and I look upon the illicit application of the Act when the policeman is not really wanting that at all, out using it as something with which to browbeat any man in any circumstance. A man who does not do anything to the satisfaction of a policeman can be badgered and bullied on that plea. I remember a power such as this being put into a Bill dealing with the importation of plumage. It was backed up by all the powers of a Government with a good majority, but When the Committee learnt that the policeman in any circumstance was to have the right to stop anyone on the plea of importing plumage the measure had not the ghost of a chance and it was lost. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that only fifteen Members were present while such an important matter was being discussed. The first answer to that is that it has apparently already been very well discussed in Committee, and the Government with a majority behind it would not listen to reason, but insisted on putting it in. It is only those persistent Members who stick to the right course to the end who are here to fight it. But the number in this House is no indication of the importance of the measure. The other day £650,000,000 were passing through the House and the benches were conspicuous by the absence of Members. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman will say that it was unimportant that £650,000,000 should be exacted from the taxpayer, but whether there are few or many here I desire to enter my protest against this power being handed over to the ordinary wayside policeman to accost any of us in the street. I prophesy to the Secretary for Scotland that this will not get on to the Statute Book, because it has to run through the criticism of the other House, which has unfortunately nowadays become the protector of the rights of the people. I think this Government does not protect the rights of the people, but the House of Peers will not allow this Sub-section to pass without some qualification of the power of the constable.
    Mr. MUNRO: I have listened with great care to the arguments with regard to this Clause, and I listened with equal care to the arguments which were used in Committee, and if repetition of an argument strengthens it, hon. Members have very considerably fortified their position, because I have been unable to find a single

    1369
    new argument from beginning to end of the Debate. The case was very fully presented in Committee. It was also argued on the Second Reading and fully replied to by the Under-Secretary to the Local Government Board. Much of the argument that has been used rests upon distrust of the police force. That is particularly so with regard to my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Watt), who spoke about policemen badgering, bullying, and browbeating people in order to get this information. That is not my conception of the police force either in England or in Scotland, and I am rather surprised to hear from my hon. Friend that it is his. However, when I hear that he relies upon another place to put things right which are wrong in this place, I am prepared to hear anything from him. The speeches that have been made have really exaggerated the importance of the provision which is under discussion. I can imagine my hon. Friends resenting even the attentions of a ticket-collector as being an outrage upon liberty.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Do treat the matter seriously.
    Mr. MUNRO: I have been endeavouring to do so.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: You are not doing so now.
    Mr. MUNRO: That is a matter of opinion. If the hon. Member objects to the slightest observation of a humorous kind—
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: I did not know it was humorous.
    Mr. MUNRO: I am going to treat the matter quite seriously if the hon. Member will permit me to proceed, but it is impossible for two Members to address the House at the same time. I have made inquiry into the matter, and I am advised by those who know and are in a position to advise, that this is a necessary power in order to complete the register, and it is a necessary power also in order to keep the register up to date. If it is necessary for those two purposes and if the register cannot be at the outset completed, and if it cannot be kept up to date without this power, then I think we might as well have no register at all unless the power is given. We want an accurate register and a complete register, and according to the advice I have received the exercise of this power
    1370
    may be necessary to secure that result. I do no; think it would be possible to restrict the operation of the Clause in the way suggested by my hon. Friend (Mr. Kiley) by confining its exercise to a sergeant of police. Speaking for myself—and I have had a good deal more to do with the police than hon. Members who have spoken—I should be quite prepared to confide this discretion to an ordinary constable and to entrust him not to misuse the powers so confided to him. The power is already in existence in regard to certificates of exemption, and I do not see why it cannot be applied to certificates of registration. One cannot foretell how often the power may have to be exercised. It may be frequent or it may be infrequent, but one's experience teaches one that the conferring of a power upon an individual or upon an organisation may not infrequently render its exercise unnecessary. That is to say, that in such cases as this if it is known that such a power exists and has been conferred by this House upon the police force that may probably render its exercise less frequent than some of my hon. Friends think will be the case. At any rate, if it be necessary in order to have an accurate and complete register to give this power, then so far as I am concerned I regard that as a sufficient argument for inserting the power in the Bill.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I regret very much to find my right hon. Friend defending this indefensible provision. It is strange to what lengths Liberal Ministers can be driven by the stress of circumstances. Here is a provision which in fact makes every male person above a certain ago in this country a ticket-of-leave man. I hold that to confer such a power is absolutely unnecessary, and if it were necessary it would be a complete condemnation of the measure which requires it. We were understood to be fighting against Prussianism, but if there is one timing more than another which is the badge, the emblem, and the symbol of Prussianism it is this ticket-of-leave system which is embodied in the provision we arc now discussing. It is an extraordinary doctrine that it is well to put an objectionable power into a Bill even although it will not be exercised, because its presence in the Bill may render the exercise if it is necessary.
    Mr. MUNRO: The hon. Member uses the word "objectionable." That is the point of difference between us.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think my right hon. Friend, on reflection, will regret the quarrel over my adjective. He certainly brought forward no argument to indicate that it was not objectionable. This power is contrary to the instincts and the traditions of the British people. No man would ever suggest a provision of this kind in ordinary times nor would it be suggested in this House now were it not for the extraordinary conditions under which the House acts at the present time. In the days of the Coalition we had a National Register Bill which did not include this provision. We were told that that Bill was adequate for the purpose of securing in the first place a National Register and also for keeping it up to date. But that was a Government which still contained ostensibly some Liberal elements. The present Ministry has so far lost itself that it declines to regard as objectionable a provision which is repugnant to the free spirit of every British citizen. The right hon. Gentleman has reminded us that this provision has been discussed on the Second Reading, in Committee, and now on the Report stage, and he took some objection to its iteration, although the forms of the House provide for these means of iteration, in order to prevent objectionable provisions of this kind being inserted. Right through all these discussions not a single attempt has been made by any representative of the Government to prove that this provision is not objectionable. It is justified on two grounds. First of all, that it is necessary for the purpose of having a complete register. Necessity, in other words, is used as an argument to overcome the objections which, on other grounds, everybody would urge against this provision. We do not accept the ground of necessity. There is no necessity for it. No such power should be conferred upon an ordinary constable, and I am surprised that my right hon. Friend, with his knowledge of the administration of the criminal law, should exalt the ordinary constable to the pinnacle to which he has exalted him. I think it is preposterous. He does not expect any of us to believe that the argument which he put forward on that head is the result of his experience as Lord Advocate.
    Mr. MUNRO: Most emphatically.
    Mr. PRINGLE: My right hon. Friend says most emphatically. He amazes me more and more. Some of us know some-
    1372
    thing of what police evidence amounts to, and the right hon. Gentleman, both as prosecuting and as a defending counsel, must know something about it. Yet he asks the Committee to believe that, as a result of his experience in both capacities, he finds the ordinary constable is a man upon whom these powers can with safety be conferred. It seems to me that we have reached a stage when it is impossible for us to treat any arguments or any contention coming from a responsible Minister with anything but contempt. They are willing to put the most indefensible provisions in their Bills, and they are willing to defend those indefensible provisions by the most contemptible and indefensible arguments. They will tell us that this is done to win the War. It would be a subject matter of some humour were it not for the serious position in which the country is standing. Nothing will convince the great majority of the people of this country when the time comes to look over the restrictive and punitive legislation which has been passed, that there has been any justification for half the legislation which this Government has imposed.
    I would like to deal with the argument, if I can dignify it with that name, that this provision ought to be kept in because it will never be used. That is the most extraordinary doctrine that has ever been put forward. Why should we in this House say that every man is going to be subject to be badgered by any policeman who may have a grudge against him, because that is what this power amounts to We know perfectly well the extent to which in many other spheres of life policemen in the past have used powers conferred upon them under police legislation and regulations to badger people who were not servile enough and who did not please them. We know that men have been persecuted under the Lighting Regulations by policemen. Because some person uses possibly a sharp word to a policeman, he has been got at for a purely accidental offence against some Regulation, and has been brought into the Police Court and subjected to a heavy penalty. If you give this power, you render a large number of people subject to the same kind of persecution. I do not think this House has any right to set up this kind of petty tyranny and to put it in such hands. I believe that in the majority of cases the power will be quite

    1373
    useless as a means of keeping the register up to date, because in a large number of cases the police will not trouble to put it into operation, in view of the many other duties they have to perform; there will be other cases where policemen undoubtedly will use this power for the purpose of persecution. That is the kind of thing which the Government is opening the door to now, and it is a thing which they should set their faces against at all costs. It is absolutely unnecessary. It will bring in the worst features of the Prussian ticket-of-leave system, whereby the average citizen is exposed to all the espionage which in ordinary times has been inflicted upon the criminal.
    6.0 P.M.
    Colonel GREIG: I hardly think the hon. Member has done justice to himself. In a speech in which he has abused the police and a Minister of the Crown he has made use of the ability which evidently he possesses to advocate something which would make it difficult to carry out what is necessary in the abnormal times which he admits we are going through. Abnormal times they are, and it shows the patriotism of the people that they have submitted and are willing to submit to many of these abnormal regulations and restrictions which no one would think of imposing in ordinary times. The hon. Member does not hesitate to cast odium upon the police, who of all classes at this time of crisis have done so much for the country. Many of them have enlisted in the forces of the Crown and many of them have shown a patriotism which might be imitated by other people. I do not need to point out
    that this exaggerated language has nothing whatever to do with the Clause under discussion. It is a simple Clause dealing with the power of police constables to ask. for a man's registration card.
    Mr. WATT: At any time!
    Colonel GREIG: Just as a railway porter can at any time demand the hon. Member's season ticket when he goes up. the Clyde to Glasgow, and, if he does not produce it, can take his name and address. That is exactly the same power. Does the hon. Member for Haggerston, who, I dare say, has had a season ticket, think it an infringement of his liberty if he is asked to produce it? This is part of the contract between patriotic citizens and the community.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: The hon. Member has asked me a question. Will he allow me to answer it?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Do not bother; he has. his job to defend!
    Colonel GREIG: It is the job of every man who wants to defend his country and to see an end to the War, and I am saying,. what every man must feel, that I regret that the hon. Member, whose abilities and. acumen are as great as those of any other Member of this House, should put his great ability to the purposes which he has exhibited on that bench.
    Question put, "That the words proposed. to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 28.

    Division No. 148.]

    AYES.

    [6.3 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

    Henry, Denis S.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Alien, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Cowan, Sir W. H.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, E.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Barrie, H. T.

    Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Bathurst, Capt. Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield).

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Hope, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Midlothian)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)

    Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk.

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

    Boyton, Sir James

    Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray

    Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham)

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Bull, Sir William James

    Fleming, Sir John (Aberdeen)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Burdett-coutts, W.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Butcher, John George

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Lewis, Rt. Han. John Herbert

    Carew, C. R. S.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Cator, John

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Cautley. Henry Strother

    Griffith. Rt Hon. Sir Ellis J.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Cave, Rt Hon. Sir G.

    Hall, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)

    Lonsdale, James R.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Cheyne, Sir W. W.

    Hamersley, Lt.-Col. Alfred St. George

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hamilton. C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

    Harcourt. Robert V. (Montrose)

    McNeill Ronald (kent. St. Augustine's)

    Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

    Haslam, Lewis

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmanan)

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

    Watson, J. B. (Stockton)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Rutherford, Sir W. (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Weigall, Lieut.-Col. W. E. G. A.

    Meux, Adml. Hon. Sir Hedworth

    Samuels, Arthur W.

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.)

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Wills, Major Sir Gilbert

    Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Yorks. E.R.)

    Morton, Sir Alpheus Cleophas

    Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.

    Wilson, Col. Leslie C. (Reading)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Shortt, Edward

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Smith, Sir Swine (Keighley, Yorke)

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Newman, Major John R. P.

    Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Norman, Rt. Hon. Major Sir H.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks., Ripon)

    Parker, Rt. Hon. Sir G. (Gravesend)

    Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald

    Wright, Capt. Henry Fitzherbert

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Yco, Sir Alfred William

    Partington, Hon. Oswald

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Younger, Sir George

    Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

    Thomas, Sir A. G. (Monmouth, S.)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Thynne, Lt.-Col. Lord Alexander

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Tickler, T. G.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Edmund Talbot and Capt. F. Guest.

    Pratt, J. W.

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    NOES.

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts., Cricklade)

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

    Bliss, Joseph

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Smallwood, Edward

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Gilbert, J. D.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Watt, Henry A.

    Harris, Percy A (Leicester, S.)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Morrell, Philip

    Wilson. W T. (Westhoughton)

    Hinds, John

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Hogge, James Myles

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Rowlands, James

    Chancellor and Mr. Whitehouse.

    King, Joseph

    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words, "Provided that no discharged sailor or soldier shall be subject to the penalties under this Act."
    This is an aspect of the discussion that ranged over a considerable time during the Committee stage of the Bill, and has been referred to during the present stage of the discussion; and I will, therefore, put the case for this Amendment as briefly as possible. The Bill places upon discharged soldiers and sailors the duty of registering under this Act. The President of the Local Government Board, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, made a special point of the fact that it was to bring within its purview the great numbers of soldiers who are being continually discharged from the Army by reason of wounds, sickness, age, or other cause. It is admitted that a very considerable number of soldiers will be affected by the Act. It places upon these soldiers not the duty of filling up a form that is sent to them, but, within a few days after their arrival in this country, the duty of knowing all about the provisions of this Act, and therefore being able to obtain a form from the proper authority, filling it up, and returning it; also the duty, if they change their address, of filling up another form within seven days, and, if they change their occupation or profession, the duty of
    1376
    returning the change on a form which they have obtained. If they fail to perform any of these duties placed upon them the discharged soldiers may, if prosecuted and convicted, be fined a sum not exceeding £5, and may be further subjected to continuing penalties of £1 a day, if they still fail to observe the provisions of the Act. That means that a soldier who does not register himself, or does not return a change of address or occupation, may be subjected to these penalties.
    I ant quite ready to admit that the right hon. Gentleman has introduced certain modifications by which it is necessary, before a prosecution can be begun, to obtain the consent of the Director-General of National Service. While that is a slight concession. it. fails entirely to meet the real gravity of the case. The right hon. Gentleman, in a very eloquent speech, spoke of the object of including discharged soldiers under this scheme of registration. He wished to assist them to obtain employment, to facilitate their re-entry into industrial life. It was an act of friendship to them. I can only say that the soldier who, because of his failure to carry out the trumpery provisions of an Act of whose existence he may have no knowledge, is first accosted by the police, under the provisions of this Clause, and then, after permission has been obtained, prosecuted

    1377
    for failing to obtain forms and returning them in time, or, for not returning his change of address or occupation, is subjected to these fines and continuing penalties. I can only say that the discharged soldier, sick or wounded, will look with very grave suspicion upon the professions of friendship and consideration and regard which are made with respect to him when he finds himself under police supervision and under drastic treatment of the kind proposed in this measure, even though it be said to be in his own interest. I regard the proposals to place these duties upon discharged soldiers or sailors as a drastic step, for if he fails to observe them he is to be placed under what are, to my mind, preposterous penalties. I look upon it as a great scandal, and I am very much surprised that any Bill should have been brought forward in this House which contains any such provisions. I know very well that the right hon. Gentleman will get up and complain of my repetition of arguments, that he will say that it is an extravagant picture that has been made of this Bill, that no prosecutions will take place, that we may trust the police, the Director-General, the local registration authorities, end, above all, his own Department. In view of his past speeches any speech like that will leave me entirely unmoved. I am only concerned with the provisions of this Bill, and the picture I have drawn represents what may happen under them. The right hon. Gentleman has again and again laboured the need for having a register of discharged soldiers. Why should this extraordinary method of having a register of discharged soldiers be adopted? I should have thought that the first duties of the Army authorities in discharging a man would be to take full details about him—the place from which he came and was returning to; and I should have thought, also, that information could have been communicated to the local authority in the district where the man was going to live.
    I object altogether to placing responsibility for registration upon the individual soldier. First of all, he is to be under police supervision, and, secondly, any failure to register is to be visited with what are extraordinarily drastic penalties. no matter bow they may be modified by quite small concessions that have been made by the right hon. Gentleman. It would
    1378
    be out of order within the limits of my Amendment to argue the effect of the provisions of this Bill on other people, because this Amendment is limited to the specific case of soldiers and sailors. I shall not detain the House by repeating the other obvious objections to the Clause; I will only say that I think all the provisions of the Bill will be especially repugnant to the country. I am quite sure that the last thing they desire is that the discharged soldier or sailor, who may be sick or wounded, should be subjected to police intervention, together with threats of penalties if he does not carry out the provisions of this Act. The first thing the public will desire is that these men should be met with the utmost sympathy and consideration; that it should be regarded as the first duty of the nation to help them back into civil life with every sort of friendly consideration. I submit that such consideration is impossible if you accompany the promise to help them with threats of penal legislation of this character. I am not deterred from moving this Amendment by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman will pooh-pooh all the arguments that I have used. He will point to the smallness of the numbers who have supported it before in the Division Lobby, and will repeat his speech, which has now become almost of stock form, in resisting the Amendment. should like to hear a new style of speech from the right hon. Gentleman, if I may respectfully say so; I should like him, with all respect, to address himself to the serious arguments which are placed before him. It is because I believe that the spirit of the country will be opposed to this Bill, it is because I believe it is a measure opposed to our traditions of toleration and of justice, it is because I think it introduces most alien and objectionable features into a class of legislation which should be free from them, and it is, above all, because it imposes harsh penalties for breach of pettifogging legislation, that I shall press this Amendment to a Division.
    Mr. KING: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I shall endeavour to introduce new arguments, and only new arguments, into my remarks. I would urge that the War Office already knows all about the discharged men, and would be able to give you all information about them. They have at the National Liberal Club—the old National Liberal Club—a complete record

    1379
    of every discharged soldier. Further, you could get practically all the information you require from the Ministry of Pensions, where a record will be kept of every man discharged from the Army. Again, why can you not automatically send to the local registration authority the information obtained by the Army authorities when a man is discharged? I think the imposing of penalties in the case of discharged soldiers whom it is sought to register is most undesirable, and is likely to cause fear, suspicion, and friction.
    Mr. FISHER: The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment remarked that I introduce no new arguments into my speeches, but it will readily be seen that it is difficult to do so when one finds that no new arguments are advanced to which a reply can be made. The hon. Member has not introduced anything new in his speeches on the Second Reading of the Bill, in the long discussions in the Committee stage and, for several hours, on the Report stage. In all the speeches which he has made I have not heard him advance a single new proposition, and his observations were always supported with exaggerated epithets and wild denunciations of the Bill. Therefore, having thing new to meet., I have nothing new to introduce into my remarks, nor anything to add to the various arguments which I have brought forward in condemnation of everything the hon. Member has said. The hon. Member for North Somerset said that the knowledge obtained by the Army authorities about discharged men should be sent on to the local registration authority automatically—all the particulars about him should be forwarded for local registration purposes.
    Mr. KING: What I want is that the information about the discharged soldier should automatically be forwarded by the authorities who obtain the particulars for local registration. It would save a great deal of trouble.
    Mr. FISHER: What the hon. Gentleman wants is that the War Office is to send all these particulars to the local registration authority. or that the Ministry of Pensions might equally do so. But those authorities would not have the whole of the particulars which are required in connection with the form of registration proposed by the Bill. The War Office would not have the particulars we require, nor would the Ministry of Pensions. The latter body
    1380
    would only require such information as would relate to the granting of pensions, and the War Office would not obtain such information as is required for the register contemplated by the Bill. In order to have a useful register it must provide information as to the work which discharged soldiers and sailors had carried on previously, and as to the class of work they were prepared to undertake. A register which gave that information would show at once the discharged soldiers and sailors living in a particular area, and the kind of work, transport or other work. they were able to do, or the particular vocations they were fitted to follow. If a register of that kind were compiled. instead of being what has been described by hon. Members as a drastic measure of threats and penalties, it would be found to work to the advantage of these men. In the various localities large employers of labour in any particular area would be able to search the local register, and see the number of discharged soldiers and sailors living in the area, and to ascertain their qualifications and experience for particular kinds of work. Hon. Members have spoken of this register as detrimental to discharged soldiers and sailors. It will be nothing of the kind, nor is it what has been pictured by hon. Members. What we want, first of all, is to provide a register in the way now proposed, and, secondly, that there should be a systematic and accurate record of the available manpower of the country. Whether this register is going to be of such use as I think it will be, of course is a matter of question which may be introduced between me and the hon. Gentleman, but I am quite sure that the hon. Member will agree that if it is going to be of any use whatever it really must be an accurate register. How can it be an accurate register if the hon. Gentleman admits that hundreds of thousands of discharged soldiers and sailors in this country would be induced, so far as hon. Members could induce them, not to register?
    Every argument, every observation, made by hon. Members who oppose this Bill has been of a nature to make the soldier or sailor suspicious. They in effect say to a discharged soldier or sailor, "If you are well advised you will not in any way help to make the register accurate; so far as you are concerned, keep off the register." If hundreds of thousands of discharged soldiers and sailors do not find themselves on the register, then that

    1381
    would do very much to destroy the value of the register, from the point of view of the Food Controller, or anybody else who is going to make use of it, and who really ought to have accurate statistics of the available man-power—and woman-power, for the matter of that—in the country, and as to the numbers of different people following various trades, avocations, and so on. It is because we want the register to be thoroughly accurate, and as far as possible up to date, that we have introduced penalties into the measure, in order to see that people carry out what will be the law of the land, by not only registering themselves, but by intimating any change of address which they may make subsequently. There will not be constant prosecutions, as has been said, nor will the heavy penalties be imposed that have been spoken of. The maximum penalty of £5 will riot always be inflicted, though that would appear to be implied from what has been said. Nothing of that kind has been clone under the Act, and nothing of the kind will be done under this measure. As far as prosecutions of these men are concerned none of the 1,800 local registration authorities will be able to set on foot prosecutions against anybody, whether discharged soldier or sailor or other person, without the consent of my right hon. Friend the Minister for National Service, and does anybody believe that that Minister would sanction, even if it were put forward by a local authority, a prosecution against a discharged soldier or sailor who had been wounded in the service of his country and who had arrived here without knowing anything of a register? It is inconceivable that my right hon. Friend would allow a registration authority to initiate a prosecution of that kind, and I think it is equally inconceivable that a registration authority would propose to institute proceedings of that kind. I am really confident that not only is there no desire to prosecute or oppress either the discharged soldier or sailor or any other member of the community, but I am equally confident that it will in practice be found not to be any disadvantage to the discharged soldier or sailor to register in this way, but that rather it will be to his advantage in the way of employment, and possibly also to the advantage of my right hon. Friend the Food Controller and others who may have the need to consult the register for the local statistics which it will contain and which I hope will be valuable.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I am surprised, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, that he has not seen his way to accept this Amendment. The last of the arguments which he put forward was to the effect that a provision had been introduced that no prosecution could be undertaken by the local registration authority without the assent of the Minister of National Service, and he added that the last thing that the Minister of National Service would assent to would be the prosecution of the discharged man who had just returned from service overseas disabled. If that is the attitude of mind which the Minister for Prosecutions will take up, then surely it would be far better to accept the Amendment at once and do away altogether with the penalties which this Bill imposes upon discharged soldiers. If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, discharged soldiers are not to be prosecuted, why not take out the penalties from the Bill? He went on to say that speeches which have been delivered here were responsible for the suspicions with which the provisions of this Bill were regarded by discharged men outside. If my right hon. Friend really knew anything about the views of discharged soldiers he would know that he is under a complete misapprehension when he makes that statement. The suspicion of the discharged men in relation to provisions of this kind dates from a period long before this Bill was introduced. It is due to his experience of registration as it already exists. A great many of them thought it was their patriotic duty to register voluntarily before this Bill was thought of, and in every case where a discharged man took that course he found that he was prejudiced thereby in that he was called up for military service before the man who had failed to register. That is why he has come to regard these new provisions for compulsory register with suspicion. Indeed, he believes it is going to be a further weapon either for industrial or military conscription. I think it would be will if my right hon. Friend would entirely remove that suspicion by taking away the penalty. He says that this is a totally mistaken apprehension on the part of the discharged man. He says that, nothing will be attempted to his prejudice, and that no such thing is in contemplation, and all that they wish to do is to provide machinery which will actually operate to the advantage of these men; or, in other words, that all

    1383
    this local register will provide is a simple machinery for these men obtaining employment when they return to civil life, and that it would be also useful for other administrative purposes. If this provision is simply meant for his benefit, there is no need for a penalty to compel him to avail himself of its advantages. Let the Government, instead of throwing suspicion on the discharged man, and saying "unless there is a penalty you will not register yourself and so obtain these advantages," show their own bonâ-fide belief in the benefits which this register is going to bestow on the discharged men. They can only show that belief in their own professions by saying to the discharged men, "While other men may be forced by penalty to register we are quite willing to rely on your patriotism on the footing that the Government really intend to extend these benefits to you."
    As a matter of fact, I do not think that on the occasion of any of these Debates the Government has produced a valid argument for forcing registration upon the discharged men. My right hon. Friend has said that the War Office register does not provide the information which will be obtained under this Bill. I am surprised to hear it. I always understood that nearly eighteen months ago elaborate machinery was established by the War Office, for which special buildings were obtained which were said to be specially suitable for the purpose, in order to register the names of all the men in the Army for the purpose of demobilisation, so that the Government would have, when demobilisation came, a complete record of every man who had served and of their special aptitudes for various civil occupations. That was certainly the intention eighteen months ago, and I should be very much surprised if no steps have been taken to provide a central register of that kind. Obviously, if there is such a central register in existence, it is a very simple matter for those who are making up that central register to forward the particulars contained in it to the registration officer of the locality in which the discharged man is going to reside. There should be no difficulty at all. It is a very simple operation, and no speaker from the Front Bench has suggested that it is impossible if they have the particulars, and they professed here that they were making up a register containing these particulars. Under
    1384
    those circumstances why should it be necessary to ask the discharged man when he comes home to undertake this duty and to render him liable to all these penalties. Surely it is a very poor reward for the soldier who has been out of the country in any of the theatres of war fighting, as he believes, for liberty to come home and find himself a ticket-of-leave man, for that is what it really amounts to. The man has to carry this ticket-of-leave about with him in his pocket. He has, first of all, to register, and then to carry it in his pocket, and he is liable to be called on by any policeman to produce it. It is a strange paradox that this should be the first welcome he should receive on his return from making all these sacrifices. I think he would not look upon it in the light of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. I think an absolute case has been made out that it is unnecessary to place this indignity upon him, and if the right. hon. Gentleman knew nothing about the feelings of these men he would know that they resent it as an indignity. It is because they resent it as an indignity and because they deserve some better treatment from the Government of this country that I would appeal once more to the Government to withdraw these penalties.
    Mr. MORRELL: I listened with great pleasure to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and I like him much better when he appeals to us in a spirit of sweet reasonableness, and as I listened to his persuasive language I felt almost induced to support him on this occasion. I cannot do so, not, as he supposes, because I do not desire to see the soldier and the sailor registered. I think in many ways it is desirable that he should be registered, and I should like to see him registered, but as an act of his own free will. I do not wish to see him compelled, as he is going to be compelled, under penalties to register himself under this Bill. This Amendment does not prevent him going on to the register, and would not discourage him from getting all the advantages promised by the right hon. Gentleman. The Amendment proposes to make the discharged soldier or sailor absolutely safe from prosecution. We are told that he will not be prosecuted, and that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred there would be no prosecution, and that the local registration authority, even if it wished to do so, would have to go to the Director-General of National Service for his con-

    1385
    sent, which, I agree, is a great improvement in the Bill. I want to go one step further, and I say if you are in earnest in the benefits which you are promising to the soldier and the sailor, then it cannot be necessary to retain this ugly provision by which you are to bring the discharged soldier or sailor into the Police Court and subject him to a penalty, if not of £5, at any rate of a substantial amount. I submit that is an unnecessary provision, and certainly in a military sense, because no one supposes you are going to use it, and we are assured there is no idea of using these men for military purposes. Therefore, from the point of view of the War, it cannot be necessary to have these particulars. What is the other argument brought forward in favour of retaining this ugly and disagreeable provision? We are told that the register will work to the soldier's advantage, and that it is very important that it should be a systematic and accurate record. The right hon. Gentleman must know that under this Bill you will not have a systematic and accurate record in the sense in which the ordinary Census is so. You cannot get it, because it is not being done in the right way. The forms are not going to be distributed, and it is to be left to the discharged soldier or sailor to go to a post office and get one. In the case of lads under eighteen there are no penalties, and I think it is quite right there should not be. The initiative is left to them to go to the post office to get the forms. It is inconceivable that all these hundreds of thousands of lads will fill up the forms correctly, and all the more so if they learn there is no penalty if they fail to do so. Most of them will be patriotic and wish to assist the Government, but you are certain to have a number who are not, and who will be careless about the registration and will not see the advantage of registering.
    Therefore it is impossible to suppose that the register is going to be a systematic and accurate record. If it is not going to be systematic and accurate, then what is the argument for rendering sailors and soldiers liable to these penalties? If you are really going to offer them preferential treatment, as the right hon. Gentleman said, they will hasten to register themselves. But why should you keep this ugly penalty up your sleeve? The reason the Government do not accept this Amendment, as they ought,on their own showing, is because they look forward to the time, and they are bound
    1386
    to anticipate the time, when it will become necessary to prosecute these men and enforce these penalties. If the penalties were never going to be enforced it would be absurd to put them in the Bill. The Government know perfectly well the time will come when the discharged soldier who has served his country, and it may be has been wounded, and who has done all that he thought necessary, will be brought up in the Police Court and prosecuted under this Bill. I say it will be a disgrace to this House and a disgrace to the Government when that happens.
    I am perfectly certain the right hon. Gentleman was very sincere in his professions of how anxious he was to assist discharged soldiers. We are all anxious to do all we can for these men, for we owe to them a debt we never can meet. I say that nothing in reason is too much to do for the men who have risked their lives for the sake of the country as these men have. When a soldier who has risked his life in this way is brought up in the Police Court he hay well say to the right hon. Gentleman, "Why do you kick me downstairs? Why do you treat me in this way?" It may be you cannot get all the benefits for these amen that they ought to have. It. may be impossible to find in every case suitable, desirable, immediate employment. It may be impossible to treat them as we should all wish. At any rate, it is possible to see that under no circumstances are they subjected to penalties because owing to ignorance or prejudice, or whatever it may be, they fail to register themselves under this Bill. It seems to me this is a most necessary, a most reasonable, and a most just Amendment to this Bill, and if my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall certainly support him.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment. He is going to lose nothing by it, and if he knew how difficult it is to deal with labour matters just now he would do nothing which would be a cause of unrest. This week-end I have had an experience of how little it would take a very important section of the working men of the country to down tools. It has been avoided for the time being. I certainly do think that with the records there are of men discharged from the Army and Navy, there is no necessity whatever for imposing a penalty upon them if they forget or neglect to register under this Bill. I am certain that under this Bill you will get all that is useful

    1387
    without penalising the soldiers and sailors. Therefore, I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment. I believe that it will help to smooth the working of the Bill. It will certainly remove a cause of resentment and remedy something that may lead to bad feeling in the country. The right hon. Gentleman has not quite the same experience in connection with the feelings of working men in the works that I have. If he had I am quite satisfied he would not hesitate for a moment to accept the Amendment and so remove from the Bill any cause of resentment, bad feeling, or friction or anything that would cause unrest and upset in the country. Therefore I do join with hon. Members who have spoken in appealing to him to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. WATT: I desire to enter my protest against the non-acceptance of this Amendment by the Government. It is in my view a very necessary Amendment to the Bill, and I think the Government will regret the. day that they have not listened to the voices of my hon. Friends opposite and accepted this Amendment and similar Amendments. The Amentment, as the House knows, is that soldiers and sailors should not suffer the penalties under this measure, and the first reason why they should not so suffer is that the penalties are extraordinarily severe. In the second place, I think they should not be penalised, because under the Bill lads from fifteen and a-half to eighteen do not suffer these penalties. They are excluded from the penalties, and I venture to think that the sailors and soldiers who have done so much for us should be put in that category also. I have a tremendous respect for what these chaps have done for us. I do not think the country realises yet what they have done in the way of keeping back the Germans from our shores, fighting for our liberties and risking their lives, limbs, eyesight, and health. I ask, therefore, that these men should not be brought into this Bill: but it is practically fighting an uphill and a hopeless battle against this Government. My plea now is that, although they have been put in the Bill, they ought not to be penalised.
    My hon. Friend who has just sat down indicated that if these sailors and soldiers, for whom the country has such
    1388
    respect, are persecuted and harassed there will be trouble in the country, because they are determined in some instances at any rate not to come under this measure. I have been handed a copy of a resolution passed by the London branch of the Federation of Discharged Soldiers and Sailors to the effect that they will not register under this measure. The reason they will not register under it is that they consider it either means industrial conscription or military conscription. These views, being held by discharged soldiers and sailors, no doubt, trouble will evolve. We are told by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the measure that it is entirely for the benefit of the discharged soldiers and sailors, that a beneficial result will accrue to them, and that they need have no fear. If so, these soldiers and sailors will get to know it, but they do not see it at the moment, as this resolution indicates. If they do see it, they will come forward voluntarily; but I do not believe, notwithstanding observations to the contrary, that the result of this measure will be beneficial to these men. At any rate, as this resolution indicates, they have a suspicion that industrial conscription or military conscription is hidden under this legislation, and I think the Government have been ill-advised in not accepting this Amendment to put these soldiers and sailors outside the penalties in the same way as boys from fifteen to eighteen have been put outside.
    Mr. MUNRO: If I rise for a single moment at this stage, it is to deal with the point my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle) has raised, because the speech made by my right hon. Friend at an earlier stage dealt so fairly and fully with all the arguments that he almost, but not quite, made a convert of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell). My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanarkshire said, "Have you not got a register at the War Office which renders the compilation of this register, so far as soldiers are concerned, quite unnecessary?" I do not really think so. That register, so far as my knowledge of it goes, does not keep the information up-to-date. It may give the first particulars of the discharged soldier, but the War Office has neither a right nor a duty to keep itself in touch with his subsequent career when he returns to civil life, when

    1389
    he may frequently change his address, and not infrequently his views with regard to the occupation he desires to follow, or for which he is best fitted. So that, even assuming the existence of that register, it would not be of any benefit for the purpose for which this register is particularly designed.
    As regards the rest of the Debate, as I have said, my right hon. Friend dealt with it very fully. It is surely not necessary to say that he and I are not behind others in this House in fully appreciating what our sailors and soldiers have done for the country. But when one is compiling this register one wants to make it, as my right hon. Friend says, complete and accurate, and it would be very difficult to leave out of the ambit of the register one class of persons—to exclude one class of the community from all penalties under a British Statute. Really that is a very difficult thing to do, and one does not detract in the least from the services of sailors and soldiers in saying so. I think it would be a very difficult and dangerous thing to distinguish between classes when dealing with a matter of this sort. The fullest protection, I think, is given against the evil and dangers which are appre-
    headed by the new Clause which any right hon. Friend proposed and the House accepted to-day. Is it, conceivable in any case where a sailor or soldier returning home from service has, through ignorance of the law, omitted to register under this Act, that any right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service would give his consent which is now required before prosecution? If these are the only cases—and they seem to be the only cases—my hon. Friend apprehends, then I really do not think there is any reasonable prospect of such cases arising, whereas on the other hand the benefits that would result—
    Mr. PRINGLE: Why not take away the penalties altogether?.
    Mr. MUNRO: That raises a much. larger question, with which my right hon. Friend has already dealt, and I should not; he in order in dealing with it on this Amendment, The Government desire this provision to remain in the Bill to ensure the completeness of the register and for the benefit of these men themselves.
    Question put, "That. those words be. there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 46; Noes, 113.

    Division No. 149.]

    AYES.

    [7.1 P. M.

    Anderson, W. C.

    Hodge, J. M.

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Northampton)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Smith, Sir Swlrc (Keighley, Yorks).

    Baker. Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Hudson, Walter

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    King, Joseph

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Bliss, Joseph

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Ctickiade)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Buxton, Noel

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Chancellor, Henry George

    O'Grady, James

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Fleming, Sir J. (Aberdeen, S.)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Gilbert, J. D.

    Rowlands, James

    Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

    RunCiman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbuzy)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

    Smallwood, Edward

    Pringle and Mr. Morrell.

    Hinds, John

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Coats, Sir stuart A. (Wimbledon)

    Griffith, Rt Hon. Sir Ellis J.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

    Hall, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)

    Barnett, Capt. R. W.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, E.)

    Hamersley, Lt.-Col. Alfred St. George

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrinchamh

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J.

    Bann, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Hanson, Charles Augustin

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Boyton, Sir James

    Edwards. John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mld.)

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Falle, Sir Bertram Godfrey

    Higham, John Sharp

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Bull, Sir William James

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Hope, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Edin., Midlothian),

    Carew, C. R. S.

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Cator, John

    Gardner, Ernest

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Cautley H. S.

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Greig, Colonel james Willam

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Gretton, Col. John

    Jones, W. S. Glyn (T. H'mts, Stepney)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Morgan, George Hay

    Stewart, Gersnom

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

    Swift, Rigby

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Morton, Sir Alpheus Cleophas

    Terrell, Major Henry (Gloucester)

    Law, Rt. Hon A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Thomas, Sir A. G. (Monmouth, S.)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. Herbert

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Tickler, T. G.

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Newman, Major John R. P.

    Watson, John Bertrand (Stockton)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Parker, Rt. Hon. Sir G. (Gravesend)

    Wills, Major Sir Gilbert

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R)

    Lansdale, James R.

    Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie G. (Reading)

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Mackinder, Halford J,

    Pato, Basil Edward

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Macmaster, Donald

    Pratt, J. W.

    Wolmer, Viscount

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

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

    Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks., Ripon)

    Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel-

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

    Wright, Captain Henry Fitzherbert

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Samuels, Arthur W.

    Younger, Sir George

    Marriott. John Arthur Ransome

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool Exchange)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord

    Meux, Adml. Han. Sir Hedworth

    Shortt, Edward

    Edmund Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Stanier, Captain Sir Bovine

    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Provisions as to Females).
    It shall be lawful for His Majesty by Order in Council to extend to female persons any of the provisions of this Act applicable only to male persons, subject to such modifications in dates as may be fixed by the Order.
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, after the word "persons" ["extend to female persons"], to insert the words" (other than the provision requiring a person on demand by a police constable or any other duly authorised person either to produce his certificate of registration or give particulars)."
    This is to ensure that the empowering of a police constable to accost any person and ask for the production of his registration certificate, his name, address, occupation, etc., shall not apply to females. Considerable debate took place during the Committee stage, and I have a good deal of sympathy with the view that it is advisable to restrict the power of the police constable in the manner suggested. I have put down this Amendment to meet the complaint then addressed to me.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I rise to acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman has very fully carried out the pledge which he gave in Committee to remove from the Bill one of its most objectionable features—amongst a multitude of objectionable features—that feature which gave any police constable power to accost any female between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five and demand their certificate of registration, or require them to give an account of themselves. This will make it unnecessary for me to move the Amendment which I have put down on the same subject. I am very glad that the discussion which we inaugurated on this point on the Committee stage has been followed
    1392
    with this measure of success, and that we have succeeded in convincing the right hon. Gentleman that it was urgently necessary to alter the Bill in this respect. I greatly regret that any Bill should have been presented to this House, drawn in the form which permitted the police of the country, without any special authority, to accost, at any hour of the day, and in any place, all women between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five. I trust that the reception of the proposal will prevent any such provision in the form of a Bill again being presented to this House for sanction.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert
    "(2) Every Order in Council made under this Section shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after the Order is laid before it praying that the Order may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Order and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done thereunder."
    I promised to bring up an Amendment which will secure the point urged by the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King). The Amendment follows the same form in which similar power is controlled in the Representation of the People Bill, a form which the House has lately adopted. In the present instance, I think, it fully meets the point of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Somerset.
    Mr. KING: I beg to thank the right hon. Gentleman for seeing that, at any rate in

    1393
    this detail, though not in respect of the whole of the Bill, I am completely satisfied.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Short Title and Construction.)
    This Act may be cited as the National Registration (Amendment) Act, 1918, and shall be construed and have effect as if it were part of the principal Act, and that Act and this Act may be cited together as the National Registration Acts, 1915 and 1918.
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words, "This Act shall come into operation on the twenty-first day after the passing thereof."
    I have already explained to the House that the Government have received a communication from the Stationery Office and the Post Office expressing their doubt as to whether they can, immediately on the passing of this Act, provide us with the necessary forms to enable them to be distributed at the principal post offices. We are, therefore, moving this Amendment in order to secure that the Act shall not come into operation until twenty-one days after its departure from both Houses of Parliament and receiving the assent of the Crown. This will give the Stationery Office and the Post Office time for the work they have to perform.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I have no intention of delaying the Third Reading of this Bill, but there are one or two things which I will say within the briefest possible space of time. I opposed this Bill on the Second Reading upon principle. I opposed it in Committee because the machinery set up to carry it out was, in my opinion, preposterous and because it would introduce an entirely new spirit which I call the Prussian spirit into our system of civil government. The President of the Local Government Board, I admit, has listened, frequently with great patience, to the various Amendments suggested on the Committee and Report stages with a view of mitigating some of the novel provisions which this measure contained. Some of the most objectionable proposals we succeeded in inducing the right hon. Gentleman to mitigate. For instance the extra-
    1394
    ordinary proposal which gave police officers without special authority the right to accost women between the ages of sixteen and sixty-five at any time or any place and require them to give an account of themselves, that provision has disappeared. With regard to a number of other provisions the Bill still remains as offensive in its amended form as it was upon its introduction.
    This Bill makes a new series of crimes for very trivial offences, and it places upon young people from the age of fifteen and old people up to sixty-five the duty of seeing that they are registered, and it makes it in the case of persons over eighteen an offence punishable by very heavy penalties if they fail to get themselves registered. For the first time in our history it makes it an offence for any person between the age of fifteen and sixty-five to change his employment or profession or occupation without registering the change with the local registration authority. It also, for the first time in our history, makes it an offence to change one's residence without notifying the change to the appropriate registration authority. These provisions are to be carried out not only by the infliction of heavy penalties which may be continuing penalties, but also under the supervision of the police in regard to matters from which they have hitherto been excluded. It is true that this special provision of the Bill no longer refers to women, but police supervision is reserved over all male persons between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five, and all male citizens between those ages will be subject on any occasion and at any hour to be accosted by any police officer that he may meet. I do not believe, especially in the present state of public opinion, that it will ever be possible to apply the amazing provisions of this amazing Bill, and I believe many of its provisions will remain a dead letter.
    The fact that the Government will be compelled not to observe many of these provisions is no justification why it should be passed. I believe the object the Government had in view in bringing in this Bill could have been obtained in a much more efficient way by more simple machinery, without introducing these unique and very amazing provisions. There may be some people in this country who still nurse the delusion that we are at present ruled by a Government which still retains some Liberal elements, and

    1395
    some men who believe in the liberty of the individual, and who are true to the Liberal traditions. if there are any such persons, and I am beginning to doubt whether they exist, the provisions of this Bill will, I think, finally undeceive them. This is a Bill which could never have been produced had it not been for the time of excitement, passion, anxiety, and sorrow under which the lives of so many people in the country have to be passed. It is only possible to get such a Bill through the House in times such as these. I regret that the Bill has been introduced, and I regret its passage to-night. More than that I believe the Government themselves will in a very short time equally regret that it has been passed into law.
    Mr. MORRELL: I should not have thought it necessary to intervene on the Third Reading but for some remarks which were made on the Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, who with others suggested that it was necessary in some way for the purpose of carrying on the War, and that those of us who have been engaged in criticising this measure and endeavouring to get it amended—I am glad to say in some cases with success—have been careless as to the situation of the country and have not behaved in a patriotic manner. Generally. I am myself quite indifferent to this sort of taunts, and I am prepared to justify my position at the right time before my Constituents. I protest against the monstrous assumption that this Bill is in some way necessary at the present time for the successful carrying on of the War. We all admit the critical situation of the country, but how is this Bill going to improve it? It is going to take a lot of officials, cost a lot of time and money, and this will only produce an incomplete and misleading register of people, most of whom cannot possibly be used in any way for military service. I agree that if you had a small and simple measure for registering young men as they came along at the age of seventeen when they would he required under the Military Service Acts, if it was done by official persons in a proper way, whatever your views may be as to the merits of Conscription, you would say, "So long as we have Conscription that is a necessary and reasonable measure," and I should not have opposed it, because I should have said it was necessary to carry out the Military Service Acts. You are dealing with young boys of fifteen,
    1396
    sixteen, and seventeen, long before they will be required for military service, and with discharged soldiers and sailors who will not be required under the present conditions of the country, and you are going to impose a lot of penalties on all sorts of persons for failing to carry out their obligations under this Bill.
    It is an attempt to make an elaborate register on the cheap. The right course was to get it done by official persons in an official way. The way it is being pro- posed is by putting a lot of penalties upon people for failing to register, and in that way trying to compel them by statutory threats to get the forms and fill them up. You will never make a complete or even satisfactory register in that way. You are only adopting the corbée system which made the French monarchy hated and despised, and which makes private persons do what public officials ought to undertake. If the right hon. Gentleman had met us as he might have done as regards the machinery, I should have had nothing more to say, but he has still left two blemishes of the gravest kind in the Bill. First of all, he leaves it still open to any policeman to stop and accost any person in the street, demanding their registration form or particulars of their name, address, occupation, etc. That is a most offensive, objectionable, and tyrannical provision. There are still left in the Bill penalties upon discharged soldiers and sailors who have already done their service. If it was for their benefit to he registered, it ought to have been a voluntary registration. If the discharged soldiers and sailors were convinced that it was for their benefit they would have registered themselves voluntarily. This is a tyrannical and a futile measure, and although in the present state of the House it does not look as if there would be any satisfaction in putting the House to a Division—
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I am going to divide the House.
    Mr. MORRELL: Then I shall support my hon. Friend. I make this final protest against what I believe to be a bad Bill in order that when this Bill comes to be administered those who have to put it into force will be very careful and will take steps to see that all its most objectionable features are not carried into effect.

  REDISTRIBUTION. OF SEATS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I hope the Minister in charge of this Bill will give us some explanation, as the measure has taken a form which was not anticipated by the House when the arrangement was come to by which it was referred to a Conference of the representatives of the Nationalist and the Unionist Members of this House with Mr. Speaker as chairman and, so to speak, as arbitrator. I feel sure we are all heartily glad that an amicable settlement has been reached and that without delay. it has been possible to place agreed proposals before Parliament. It was, however, by no means anticipated that the outcome would be to increase still further the already admitted over-representation of Ireland in this House, and I think the country will be somewhat surprised to find that the ultimate outcome of the discussion on redistribution, so far as it affects Ireland, will be that the number of Irish representatives will be raised from 103 to 105, although it is well known that on the basis of population that representation should he in the neighbourhood of 60.
  The reasons why it cannot be reduced to that number have been repeatedly stated in the House by many of us, and I do not propose to go over that ground again. Particularly there will be disappointment when it is found that the settlement arrived at is such that not only are the Irish representatives to be increased by two, but those additional two are to be university representatives, although to many of us university representation is regarded as an anomaly and we should have been glad to get rid of it in tote. It has been the declared policy of the Liberal Party for many years past to oppose the creation of university seats, but I understand that this proposal has been adopted as part of the compromise agreed to at the original conference on electoral changes connected with the Representation of the People Bill. Originally the number of universities was nine, but under the Bill that number was increased by three, which brought the total up to twelve.
  There have been hitherto, and there are at this moment, five university seats in
  1398
  England, two in Scotland, and two in Ireland, a total of As part of the compromise agreed at Mr. Speaker's Conference, that number was raised to twelve, and we acquiesced in that as a portion, and an integral part, of the general arrangement. Two more university seats were to be added to England and one more to Scotland, making a total of twelve. It is now proposed that two further seats should be added to Ireland, and in another place—it is not irrelevant to state the fact; although we cannot discuss it yet —a further university seat has been added for Wales, making a total of no fewer than fifteen university representatives in this House, if all these proposals are agreed to. I must reserve to a later stage any statement as to any action which we may think fit to take with regard to the addition to the university membership of Ireland, but I hope the Home Secretary will tell us to-day how many graduates there are in the University of Dublin, in the Queen's University, Belfast, and in the National University at Dublin, respectively. If he has not the information at hand, perhaps he will state it. in answer to a question in the House before we come to the Committee stage, in order that we may have full information as to the character of the constituencies which are now to be enfranchised.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): This Bill is the outcome of a discussion which took place when we had the Representation of the People Bill before, this House. The Government then made certain proposals for the redistribution of seats in Ireland. Objections were taken, but ultimately the principle on which we are proceeding was accepted on all hands, namely, that all parts of that. country should have equitable representation, having regard to population. On that basis the matter was referred to a Conference representing both of the parties from Ireland, with yourself as chairman, with a view to a scheme being brought before the House. We are again much indebted to Mr. Speaker for having been good enough to take charge of this matter, and so complete his labours with reference to the redistribution of seats. and the reform of the franchise. We are also indebted to the members of the Conference and to Mr. Jerred who was good enough to act as secretary. I am very glad to find that not only was our principle accepted by the Conference, but

  1399
  that with small exceptions the Conference adopted the whole of the scheme which we brought before the House. The three exceptions are these: First, they recommended that, instead of the Borough of Waterford being thrown into the County of Waterford, the two together having two seats, the borough itself should remain as a separate constituency and the remainder of the county should have one member. That difference makes no change in the number of representatives. I do not know whether it is intended to commemorate the long connection of the present Member with the borough, but, if so, I feel it a privilege to have any part in giving effect to that suggestion. Secondly, there was a change made in the boundaries of the constituencies in County Down. I am not familiar enough with the circumstances in County Down to enable me to say exactly what is the effect of that change. I have no doubt that some result will be derived or that some reason for the change will be suggested, but I am not able or competent to say more than that about. it at. the present moment.
  The third change is that to which my right hon. Friend opposite has referred, namely, the recommendation that there should be two new members from Ireland—a member for Queen's University at Belfast and a member for the National University at Dublin. I say quite frankly that it came as a surprise to me to find that the two university members recommended were to be in addition to the existing Members from Ireland. I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I think hardly anybody in this House in his heart would deny that Ireland is adequately and, indeed, excessively represented so far as numbers go in this House at the present time, and I had hoped, if it were found desirable to provide representation for the two universities, which I know was very strongly desired in Ireland, that room would have been made for them by giving up two of the existing seats. Apparently, the members of the Conference could not agree as to the method of obtaining that result, and the recommendation, as I understand, comes as representing the unanimous agreement of the Conference. The fact that they are to be university members is to me not an aggravation, but a mitigation of the regret that I feel. I think that these two
  1400
  Irish universities are well worthy, if I may use the word, of representation, and have as good a claim as our new universities in England to be represented in this House. I believe that the numbers at present are something of this kind. I am told that in Dublin University there will be some 16,000 electors. Perhaps I am overstating it. It is between 14,000 and 15,000. It is a large electorate. As regards Belfast, the number is given to me as about 3,800 at present, and, as far as regards the National University the number will be less than that. I believe something like 3,600. Those are not very large numbers, but no doubt the universities will grow as time goes on, and justify the representation given to them.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: Will that be the electorate under the Bill, as amended?
  Sir G. CAVE: I understand so, but it is impossible to be quite sure. It may be that the numbers will be rather higher when the women electors are added. I am afraid the numbers are less in the university in Wales to which my right hon. Friend referred, but I do not wish in the least to prejudice that question before it comes before this House. I feel that the recommendations come to us with all the authority of the Conference, and with the support of all the parties in Ireland, and, speaking for myself, I hope that the House will give effect to them all.
  Mr. DENMAN: I want, as a private Member, to express my own extreme sense of surprise at the recommendations before us. We naturally receive them with mixed feelings. Of course, we always accept any proposition that comes to us with the united agreement of Irishmen, and, when the proposition takes the form of more Irish members in this House, we receive it with alacrity, but, recollecting the ancient controversy on the question of the representation of Ireland, I am very much surprised that the Nationalists, at all events, are willing to accept this particular suggestion. It has always been maintained that this House has very little right to deal with the numbers of Irishmen sent to this House, because the number was fixed in a contract which is regarded as binding on both parties. If this contract is capable of easy variation in the upward direction, it is obviously easy of variation in the lower direction, and it seems to me the case for maintaining the existing number of Irishmen in

  1401
  this House becomes very poor when once we alter the number fixed at the time of the Act of Union. I hope in the Committee stage the subject will be seriously considered. Of course, no one wants to raise any difficulty, but I think there will be a very wide feeling that if we could leave the numbers as they were before this Bill came before the House it would be advisable.

  BISHOPRICS OF BRADFORD AND COVENTRY BILL [Lords].
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

  FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Modifications of Principal Act.)
  1. An Order in Council under Section four of the principal Act may be made in relation to either of the new bishoprics referred to in this Act, whenever the Ecclesiastical Commissioners certify to His Majesty under their Common Seal that the annual value of the endowment fund of such bishopric (exclusive of the annual value of any episcopal residence but in other respects calculated according to the provisions of the said Section) with the annual value of the sum to be derived from the contributory bishopric (excluding any sum contingently to he so derived) is not less than two thousand' lye hundred pounds, and that a fitting episcopal residence has been provided to the satisfaction of the said Commissioners or a capital sum (in addition to the sum necessary to produce the annual clue so certified as aforesaid) sufficient n the opinion of the said Commissioners has been contributed for that purpose.
  Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "two" ["two thousand five hundred pounds"], and to insert instead thereof the word "one."
  It has been represented to me by one or two eminent Churchmen that it would e a very good thing to take this opporunity to reduce the salary of bishops, Lot the maximum salary—let that be as large as the diocese or their friends can
  1402
  get together—but the minimum salary. The effect of my Amendment will be that. when you want to establish a new bishop you will not have to collect £2,500 a year, but only £1,500. I can conceive many advantages in that. In the first place, everybody declares that one of the crying demands of the Church at the present time is for more bishops. If you have to get £2,500 as the minimum salary, it will be much more difficult than if you only have to get £1,500. I think that is a very important consideration in view of the financial position of the country and the increasing demand for new bishops in, every direction. Let us take this opportunity of reducing the minimum salary. The Bishoprics Bill fixes a maximum and` minimum. The maximum used to be £4,200; it is now reducing to £3,500, and therefore admittedly the trend of opinion in Church and State is towards reducing the maximum salary. The standard for bishops is evidently becoming more simple and more democratic. with consequent advantage to the Church. If you fix in this Bill a minimum, that minimum really sets the standard, and it is for these reasons that I propose to reduce the minimum by £1,000.
  Sir G. CAVE: The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that the tendency is to fix a lesser salary for the purpose of founding bishoprics. In old days, not very old days, the minimum was set at £3,000. Some years ago it was reduced, but in the Act of 1878 it was £3,000. Since then there have been some Bills, three in all, in which the minimum salary has been further reduced and put at £2,500. We propose to adhere to that, and I do not think in view of the facts there will be any desire to further reduce it. The Committee will agree that we have taken a reasonable course in proposing this minimum, and I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
  Mr. KING: I am very glad to have the opportunity of stating that the view is. steadily growing as admitted by the Home Secretary that the standard should be reduced, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remember this if he has occasion to draft any fresh bishopric Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman has taken no note of the strong point I made as to the financial position of the country and a greater difficulty in collecting money. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  WILLS. (SOLDIERS AND SAILORS) BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir G. Hewart): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  I can explain in two or three sentences the scope of this Bill. It amends the law with respect to testamentary dispositions by soldiers and sailors, and its object is to explain and extend Section 11 of the Wills Act, 1837. That Section provided that any soldier being in actual military service, or any mariner or seaman being at sea, may dispose of his personal estate as he might have done before the passing of the Act. In other words, so far as personal estate alone was concerned, a person to whom the Section applied might make a testamentary disposition of his property without writing and without the presence of two witnesses. The object of the present Bill is to accomplish four simple and useful things. In the first place, it explains that the Section I have just referred to not only authorises the persons to whom it applies to make an informal will, but authorises, and has always authorised them so to do, although they may be under the age of twenty-one years. The effect of the explanation is to remove certain doubts which have been raised by a recent judgment of a learned judge of the Chancery Division. The second object of the Bill is to extend the operation of the Section so far as mariners or seamen are concerned. The law already protects the soldier wherever he is, and whatever his ditty may be for the moment so long as he is in actual military service. But in the case of the mariner or seaman its operation is limited to the time when he is actually at sea. The Bill gets rid of this anomaly. It extends the benefits of the provisions of the Act of 1837 to a member of the naval or marine forces whenever he is so circumstanced that, if he were a soldier, he would be in actual military service. The third object of the Bill, and, in a sense, no doubt its primary object, is to assimilate in these respects the law relating to the disposition of real property to the law relating to the disposition of personal property. Section 11 of the Act of 1837 is limited to wills relating to personal property; this Bill gives the same
  1404
  enabling provisions with respect to the disposition of real property. And, finally, in order to get rid of the effect of another quite recent decision, the Bill provides that in the like summary form a soldier or a sailor may by will appoint a guardian of his infant children. This Bill has already been passed through all its stages in another place, and I need not dwell further on its useful and timely provisions. I hope that the House, in view of its simplicity and its urgency, may not only give it a Second Reading now, but may pass it forthwith through all its stages.
  Resolved, "That the House will immediately resolve itself into Committee on the Bill."—[Lord E. Talbot.]
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and Reported, without amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  SECRET SITTINGS.
  Standing Order No. 90 (" Withdrawal of Strangers from the House").
  Amendment made: At end thereof, add the words "Provided that an Order made under this Standing Order shall not apply to Members of the House of Lords."—[Mr. Boner Law.]
  Ordered, That the Lords Message [22nd November], communicating Resolutions relative to Secret Sittings of the House be now considered.
  Lords Message considered accordingly.
  Resolved, That this House doth concur with the Lords in the First Resolution.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to their Lordships to acquaint them therewith and to inform their Lordships that this House hath made the necessary amendment to its Standing Order relative to the withdrawal of strangers from the House.—[Mr. Boner Law.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Adjourned accordingly at Two minutes before Eight o'clock.

WAR.
  MERCHANT SEAMEN (RECOGNITION OF GALLANTRY).
  MERCHANT SEAMEN (RECOGNITION OF GALLANTRY).
  COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES.
  COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES.
  KELLNER-PARTINGTON WOOD PULP COMPANY.
  KELLNER-PARTINGTON WOOD PULP COMPANY.
  AMERICAN BEEF COMPANIES (ASSESSMENT).
  AMERICAN BEEF COMPANIES (ASSESSMENT).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  MEAT.
  MEAT.
  CONTROL COMMITTEE (IRELAND).
  CONTROL COMMITTEE (IRELAND).
  PETTY SESSIONS CLERKS (IRELAND).
  PETTY SESSIONS CLERKS (IRELAND).
  REGIMENTAL OFFICERS (ACTING RANK).
  REGIMENTAL OFFICERS (ACTING RANK).
  ARMY MEDICAL SERVICE.
  ARMY MEDICAL SERVICE.
  CORRESPONDENCE (CENSORSHIP).
  CORRESPONDENCE (CENSORSHIP).
  ARMY RATIONS.
  ARMY RATIONS.
  WOOL (ARMY PURCHASES).
  WOOL (ARMY PURCHASES).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  DISCHARGED MEN (RE-EXAMINATION).
  DISCHARGED MEN (RE-EXAMINATION).
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (DISABLED SOLDIERS).
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (DISABLED SOLDIERS).
  TERRITORIAL OFFICERS (TRANSFER).
  TERRITORIAL OFFICERS (TRANSFER).
  LETTERS (SUNDAY DELIVERY).
  LETTERS (SUNDAY DELIVERY).
  INSURANCE AGENTS (WAGES).
  INSURANCE AGENTS (WAGES).
  RUSSIAN ARMY ORDER.
  RUSSIAN ARMY ORDER.
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Prison Service (Ireland).
  Prison Service (Ireland).
  Vaccination (Ireland).
  Vaccination (Ireland).
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Committee for Blind (Scotland).
  Committee for Blind (Scotland).
  Elementary Education (England and Wales).
  Elementary Education (England and Wales).
  Education (No. 2) Bill.
  Education (No. 2) Bill.

ALLOCATION OF SUGAR.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH had the following Notice on the Paper—
To call attention to recent announcements made public to the effect that no sugar would be allotted to those who grow their own fruit in the present year, and to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is not possible to make some modification of this policy, which otherwise will be productive of considerable inconvenience and hardship.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not intervene more than a moment between the House and the important business which comes second on the Notice Paper. As a preliminary point, I should like to assure the noble Lord the Food Controller that this Question is not conceived in any spirit of hostility to him or his work. I think all the House recognises not only the great difficulty and intricacy of the work which he has undertaken, but his unselfishness in undertaking it, and the great energy, coupled with great cheerfulness, with which he answers criticisms and does his best to get us all to agree in the things that are necessary.
The announcement that there would be no sugar for making jam for private growers of fruit has undoubtedly caused a certain amount of trouble and misgiving. I think, on the other hand, that if it is really necessary everybody will acquiesce; I, for one, if the necessity is proved, will not say a word in hostility. But the reasons given and the explanations supplied have undoubtedly raised some doubts. It is suggested that private growers of fruit can send their fruit to manufacturers of jam. I say that this is absolutely impossible. I do not want to use a hard word, but it is so silly that the author should almost be put in a lunatic asylum. Because you may be five miles from a railway station; you may have a total of 15 lbs. or 20 lbs. of fruit, ripening for three weeks according to weather, and you simply cannot organise beforehand and arrange to send small quantities of soft fruit to a town. And I do not think it is fair to country people to suggest that they, as distinguished from
1174
town people, should save sugar out of the very small rations to which they have already been cut down. But if it is possible to save out of that ration, or if it is necessary even to cut it down, then I say that the same treatment should be given to country and town alike.
All I would hope is that at some time or other, perhaps not to-night, the noble Lord the Food Controller would give us the facts as to the supply of sugar available and the use that is made of it. Many of us are apprehensive that more is going for things like beer, and perhaps even for confectionery, than is absolutely necessary. If you are to put in competition the expediency of using sugar for jam with its use for confectionery, I think it will be agreed that it would be much wiser to devote a much larger quantity to jam than to the confectionery which one sees displayed in shop windows. I will not make a speech now, but it may be necessary hereafter to refer again to the subject.
THE FOOD CONTROLLER (LORD RHONDDA): My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for postponing his Question until to-day, and I appreciate very greatly the kind personal references which he has made to myself and to the work of my Department. I do not know that I shall be able to give him an answer which will completely satisfy him, but I can assure him that I am in entire sympathy with the aims that he has in view. I am afraid I cannot give him now—I do not think it would be advisable—the figures relating to stocks of sugar or to the position of sugar generally, but at a later day I may be able to do so.
The announcement recently made by the chairman of the Royal Commission on the Sugar Supply was intended as an exhortation to those who might wish to make jam during the coming season to endeavour to save as much sugar as possible for the purpose out of their own domestic rations. It was not intended to be a decision that had been arrived at by my Department, but merely a note of warning in view of eventualities. Whether it will be possible to make allotments of sugar for jam-making to those who grow their own fruit must depend on the stocks of sugar available at the time. I have been discussing the matter with Sir Charles Bathurst and my advisers, and hope that the supplies will permit reasonable allotments

1175
being made, though I cannot at this time give any definite promise or say how much may be allowed.
I am fully aware of the importance of encouraging jam-making and preventing any waste of fruit by private growers, and your Lordships may rely on my doing what is possible. I may add that arrangements are being made, in co-operation with the Food Production Department, to provide for the collection of fruit grown by cottagers. I do not suggest that the cottagers themselves should send their fruit to the jam manufacturers, but we propose to provide for the collection of fruit grown by cottagers and other small growers, and for its transmission to pulping stations for conversion into pulp which can be used for the manufacture of jam.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, may I, as one who lives in a fruit-growing county, endeavour to persuade the noble Lord that it is an entire delusion to suppose that he can set up any system of transport that could possibly collect soft and perishable fruit from cottagers. The fruit must be collected and packed and got to market in a very short time, and the amount of transport required to go round villages in a fruit-growing district and collect from each small grower would be very large indeed, and I am perfectly certain that there is not the transport available to do it.
THE EARL OF ROSSLYN: May I suggest to the noble Lord a matter which has come before me and in which I am extremely interested, and that is that the very large number of soldiers who are in sedentary occupations but still wear His Majesty's uniform are drawing fourteen ounces of sugar a week. I am perfectly certain that the Quartermaster-General of the Army would be the first person to arrange and the soldiers themselves would be the first persons to insist on the giving up of a portion of that ration.
LORD RHONDDA: I can only say that I note what Lord Rosslyn and Lord Harris have said. I will bear it in mind, and consult my advisers upon it, and if I find it necessary to make any change in the announcement that has been made, it will be done.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:—
Parliamentary franchises (men).
1.—(1) A man shall be entitled to be registered as a parliamentary elector for a constituency (other than a university constituency) if he is of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity and—

(a) has the requisite residence qualification, or

(b) has the requisite business premises qualification.

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

(a) must during the last fourteen days of the qualifying period be residing in premises in the constituency, or occupying business premises in the constituency as the case may be; and

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

For the purposes of this subsection the administrative county of London shall be treated as a parliamentary borough.
(3) The expression "business premises" in this section means land or other premises of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds occupied for the purpose of the business profession or trade of the person to be registered.
LORD FARRER LORD FARRER moved, at the beginning of subsection (1), after "A man." to insert "including any Peer." The noble Lord said: I have put down this Amendment at this late stage because during the deeply interesting debates which have occurred in your Lordships' House certain definite points have emerged which were not clear at their inception. The noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, in Committee, ill answer to a question of mine, stated that the disability of a Peer to vote for a Member of the other House rested upon Common Law, not upon any Statute. I notice that at the recent meeting of the Judges with the Lord Chief Justice starting on his Mission to America the Lord Chief Justice was defined as "the custodian of the Common Law." I hope I may therefore find in him some sympathy with our

1177
potential disabilities, even though he be in another land. Moreover, the Lord Chancellor has told us during our debates that—
"The whole policy of the Bill is that residence in the constituency, even though not as a matter of right but on sufferance, shall be enough to confer the right to vote."
If so, and this be really the democratic country which we have so frequently during these debates been assured that it is, there ought not, I think, to be one special class of persons, and one only, excluded; and I desire, if possible, to make this clear by Statute. If our exclusion rests on a Court of Law, we depend on the Judges; and, excellent as our Law Courts are, and greatly as I value the (I think it is) five Lord Chancellors who are members of this House, we ought not to hang, like Mahomet's coffin, dependent on the Judges' decisions. I say "hang like Mahomet's coffin." because, until the Report of my noble friend Lord Bryce on the reconstitution of this House is received, we do not know where we, as individuals, stand in this matter. Let us, therefore, make the position clear here and now. Another technical argument, I think, in favour of our having the vote is that the House of Commons itself no longer passes the annual Standing Order forbidding Peers to take part in elections, showing that this branch of the Legislature does not regard our individual influence as a menace. It has struck me that it is possible, when they dropped that Resolution years ago, that they thought that perhaps a newspaper editor or a financial magnate was more powerful to-day than a Peer.
The noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, in his most interesting speech, started from the axiom that a vote is a privilege and not a right. The theory is attractive, because you can deduce from it anything that you wish in the way of special privileges being allowed to certain classes—and an English peer represents nobody except himself—but it seems to me in direct contradiction to the Lord Chancellor's view of the Bill. I should rather say that the Bill, which, of course, is, as the noble Earl the Leader of the House told us, a revolution, was drawn on the theory of "one resident soul, one vote"; and the main difference, except that of machinery (machinery being no in-considerable one, but rather a lawyer's than a politician's obstacle) was to decide at what age a soul deserved to obtain its privilege—if that be the right term.
But even if we assume the noble Viscount's axiom that a vote is a privilege and not a right, he will hardly deny that in the particular case which we are discussing that is, a vote for a Member to sit in our British Parliament—the historical aspect of such a vote is to be found in the origin of the House of Commons, and that was the difficulties of the Executive in finding moneys to carry on expensive foreign wars; a bargain of the Barons though they did not express it in those exact words that taxation and representation must go together. They called it "Redress of grievances before Supply." Therefore I rest my case for pressing this Amendment on grounds somewhat higher than technicalities, or even past history, though in my opinion this House ought to be the guardian of historical traditions.
If there is one thing more striking than another which emerged from the admirable speeches on the woman suffrage question in Committee, it was the testimony of the interest which woman took in the financial affairs of which Parliament is the ultimate custodian—the difficulty of feeding and bringing up a family. It has been said that, "Men care more about wages, and women are more influenced by prices." I am sure that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, which he has piloted so clearly and courteously through its difficult Committee stage, is the first man in the world to recognise this. His name is honoured in thousands of humble English homes to-day because his great namesake gave the people cheap and plentiful food—brought, as we are told in his biography, slowly and by stages to the conviction that it was the greatest and most beneficient gift that a politician could confer on them, greater than the vote itself. I think I am not wrong in saying that in his life he expressed the conviction that the only safe way of avoiding revolution for the politician was constantly to have the consumer's interest at heart, because the producer would always look after himself.
And can we look round to-day and not see that the working class shortage of food is teaching them the same lesson after two generations of plenty that the first duty of good government is good public finance, that taxes are an evil and not a good, and that great public expenditure always reacts most unfavourably upon the daily life of the poorest classes? And yet your Lordships' House as a House, since the historic

1179
night when the Budget was rejected, has virtually ceased to be able directly to control finance, that great engine which is the machine of government. The House of Commons controls the machine. Are we also to be debarred as individual members from voting for those who are masters of this machine?
During all these long debates, I have hardly heard a word about the fact, which at this moment is paramount in nine-tenths of the people's minds—the serious labour unrest, prices rising faster than wages, which is really a financial and food difficulty brought about by the hideous tragedy through which we are living. In the far more difficult times ahead of us when we have to pay the interest on the £5,000,000,000 of new National Debt, are we to have no voice in choosing the men who are to deal with it, and yet as a body equally to be debarred from discussing it except platonically? I cannot imagine a more anomalous or more humilating position, except possibly to be the husband of a Peeress who has such a vote through her husband's local government qualification, while the husband himself is treated as an idiot or a felon and deprived of it by the lawyers who deal with those classes of our fellow subjects. Fures quid femina possit—when the Bill is through we may whistle for our "privilege."
The noble Earl who so eloquently leads this House spoke in his opening address this session of seeing many constitutional theories swept to the winds in the days immediately ahead of us. I hope he was not adumbrating a single-Chamber Government in these ominous words; for I do not think our experience either to-day or in Cromwell's time is particularly gratifying in that direction. Still less am I desirous of seeing swept away that which to my mind is the greatest principle of all in the stability of our Constitution—namely, as I have said before, that taxation and representation should go as closely as possible together. Upon it has been built up the prosperity and happiness of our country as we know it, because in my view it is really based on what is called, in to-day's slang phrase, "equality of sacrifice." Let us avoid the suspicion that we desire to form such a class separate from the rest of the nation, and take our part in Peace as your Lordships' House have so nobly done in War on a par with the average mass of our fellow-citizens.
The late Master of Balliol used to have a dry saying which, in these days of Hymns of Hate, might be quoted with advantage—
"Almost everybody is a very good sort of fellow if you only know him."
If we can claim no special privileges as Peers—and I believe there are very few left except one—namely, that of killing two deer in the King's parks on the way to Parliament, which might be useful in these times—we shall in my view do much to preserve the great and at the present moment deserved popularity of this House, if we can see our way not to differentiate ourselves from other classes of the population. I think, at any rate, it will be most important that our action in this matter should not be misconstrued. I certainly do not misconstrue it myself, after the admiration with which I have listened to these debates; but it may be misunderstood if we do not make it clear by Statute that we claim no special exemptions for ourselves.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, after ("man") insert ("including any Peer").—(Lord Farrer.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord has made the proposition that Peers shall be enabled to vote for Members of Parliament. I thought it possible that that proposal might come from some quarter of this House, although I was a little surprised at the actual quarter in which it did arise. There is no doubt, of course, that the position of a Peer may be to some extent altered by the great changes made in the franchise by this Bill. There is further the curious anomaly, if you may so call it, that a Peer may not vote, although a Peeress may—that a Peer is, to put at the highest, merely a sort of conduit pipe to convey this great power, whereas he himself is debarred from exercising it.
The other point raised by the noble Lord no doubt deserves to be weighed, and that is that since the passing of the Parliament Act this House has had no control at all over finance; that the contribution of this House or of individual members of it is no doubt extremely large; and that in that respect they might fairly claim to exercise one vote, or possibly in some cases two votes, in order to have some sort of control over the expenditure and raising of the money. On the other hand, of course, the Common Law reasons, if I may so put it, why Peers have not been able to exercise

1181
the vote is that they have certain special privileges, one of those being that they have the right to deal with measures in this House and that they form the Second Chamber of this Realm. Of course, one curious point has to be noted in regard to the position of Bishops. When a man is made a Bishop he keeps his vote, but when he enters this House as a Peer of Parliament he loses his vote.
I do not wish to take up on the part of the Government any very rigid attitude in this matter. I ought to point out, of course, that there is a certain Resolution which used to be passed, I think, every year in another place—it is, of course, only a Resolution—"that no peer of the realm, except such peers of Ireland as shall for the time being be actually selected, and shall not have declined to serve, for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, hath any right to give his vote in the election of any member to serve in parliament." Of course, there is no doubt that if this proposal of the noble Lord became a portion of this Bill when it became an Act, the other House would alter that Resolution; and the noble Lord has pointed out already that the fear of excessive influence of Peers at elections has been removed from another place and they no longer pass that Sessional Resolution.
The only point for your Lordships to consider is whether it is wise for your Lordships to press for this particular right to vote for Members of the other House, considering the to some extent privileged position which members of this House already enjoy. The only other point which I would like to add is this, that I suppose if certain changes are made in the composition of this House and members of the House or a certain number of them are elected, the members of the other House will claim the right to vote for them. But perhaps this is a premature speculation, because we have up to now had no proposals put before us for an alteration in the composition of this House. Therefore I would respectfully, and perhaps I should say humbly, suggest to your Lordships that considering the position of this House, and the rights which your Lordships enjoy, it would perhaps be more prudent not to insist upon the right to vote for members of the other House. It is a matter on which the Government do not take a very rigid or defined line, and it is one entirely for the consideration of your Lordships.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I hope that the House will on the whole decide to accept the advice which it has just received from the noble Viscount, Lord Peel. It is quite true, as he stated towards the close of his observations, that the whole of this question is practically bound to come under review when the question of any reform in the composition of your Lordships' House comes to be considered by Parliament; and I cannot help thinking that it would be wise to postpone until then any further consideration of this particular disability, for which, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, as matters are, we do receive at any rate some compensation.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT VISCOUNT HARCOURT moved to omit from subsection (2) (a) the words "during the last fourteen days" and to insert "on the last day." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment deals with an alteration which was accepted by the Government on the proposal of the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown. I dare say the reason for my Amendment, or for the acceptance of the original Amendment by the Government, would not be very clear to your Lordships. It was directed to an object which we all have at heart—namely, to defeat the possible "swallow" voter. Lord Camperdown thought that by insisting upon a residence of fourteen days before January 1 and July 1, that object would be effectively attained. The Government accepted that Amendment possibly without realising, as I myself did not realise, that in many counties the old quarter-days of January 6 and July 6 are in use for changes of residence instead of January 1 and July 1 in other counties. The result of imposing a residence of fourteen days before the qualifying date—before January 15, and July 15—would in the counties I refer to disfranchise a large number of people who move on January 6, or July 6. For this reason I have attempted to meet the noble Earl, though I do not think I have succeeded, by transferring the fourteen days from the period preceding the qualifying date to a period after the qualifying date. The counties in which January 6 and July 6 are used universally are those of Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridge, Huntingdonshire, and Lincolnshire. The old Quarter Days are also used in Bedfordshire. Berkshire, Oxfordshire, and Yorkshire. Your Lordships will see that if we leave the Bill

1183
as it is, with the fourteen days in, we shall in those nine counties disfranchise for a period which we none of us wish a very considerable number of people who are moving from their present homes to new ones. I believe the Bill really was in its best form as it came up to your Lordships from the Commons, with a provision by which a man would not be entitled to remain on the Register unless he resided for thirty days after the qualifying date. If it would meet Lord Camperdown, I should be quite willing to recur to the Commons proposal, and at the same time, if he wished it, to add eight days before the qualifying date. In that way we can do everything possible to guard against the "swallow" voter. I put down really alternative Amendments. There are these two which should be read together—
VISCOUNT PEEL: Are the first two to be read together?
VISCOUNT HARCOCRT: Yes, and I have another in Clause 7 on page 5, line 31. That should be read with the first of these two. I do not attach importance as to which is accepted, and I am quite willing, if it would suit the noble Lord, to recur to the Commons form or to take the Commons form plus eight days in advance of the qualifying date. I only wish to avoid this large disfranchisement which would occur in the nine counties I have mentioned.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Is your second Amendment in line 16 [after ("period") insert ("and for fourteen days immediately thereafter")] to be read with the Amendment in line 15?
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: Yes.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("during the last fourteen days") and insert ("on the last day").—(Viscount Harcourt.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: As it was on my motion in Committee that your Lordships struck out the words "on the last day" and inserted "during the last fourteen days"—that is the fourteen days of the qualifying period—perhaps I may be allowed in a few words to explain to your Lordships why, so far as I am personally concerned. I am unable to accept the proposal of the noble Viscount and would suggest that your Lordships should adhere to the decision at which you have previously arrived. That decision was based on this ground. There was a certain
1184
period of residence which was necessary, and the question was whether that residence should take place before the qualifying period, or, some portions at all events, after the qualifying period. I need not go into the arguments I advanced to your Lordships then, but your Lordships came to the conclusion that "during the last fourteen days of the qualifying period" were the correct words, and that the residence should have taken place at that time, so that it would be certain that the person who thus obtained the right to be on the Register had actually completed the condition on which he was to vote. I must say it seems rather extraordinary to propose to strike out the words which after consideration the Government accepted from me—to strike them out at this the next stage of the Bill—and to insert the words which your Lordships struck out in Committee. Why does the noble Viscount propose to strike this out? The reason is that it does not suit certain persons. I am sorry to say that I believe it is impossible for Parliament to make a Regulation to suit everybody, and therefore you must take the general opinion. If there are persons whom it does not suit, I submit to your Lordships that it is for them to alter their practice and not to call upon Parliament to withdraw its decision and to establish something else. It would not be possible to suit everybody. There would be another set of people who would have a different objection. I venture to hope that the noble Viscount who considered the case on the previous occasion will adhere to the decision he then arrived at and retain the words in the Bill.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I asked the noble Viscount opposite whether the two Amendments were connected together, because if they are they appear to me to have rather a different effect from that which he suggested. He wants to leave out "during the last fourteen days" and to insert "on the last day." Then he wishes to add" and for fourteen days immediately there-after."Would not that have the effect of lengthening the period of qualification? That is to say, instead of the period being six months, it would be six months and fourteen days. It would make the period of qualification longer than the House of Commons intended.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: I think that as the Bill came from the House of

1185
Commons it provided, in order to avoid the "swallow" voter, that he had to remain in his house for "thirty days thereafter." It was not argued, I think, that this made it a seven months qualification.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think the noble Viscount is not quite right in his recollection. If he were, it would clearly mean a seven months qualification instead of six. What was suggested was this, that if anybody came to the residence where he was actually going to get his vote within thirty days of the end of the qualifying period he must, in order to show that he was a genuine person and not a "swallow" remain till thirty days had elapsed, although those thirty days might overlap the actual period of qualification. But the noble Viscount's Amendment is quite different. It applies generally to everybody, and he suggests that everybody must be in his residence on the last day of the qualifying period and for an additional fourteen days. That would apply far more widely than merely to the swallow voter, and it would establish a totally new period of qualification—namely, six months and a fortnight, instead of six months.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: It may be the effect. That was not my intention.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Probably not; but I am afraid that is the effect, and therefore I think the noble Viscount would hardly press it.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: Then, my Lords, I am forced to alter the Amendment in some way to meet the objection of the noble Viscount. Let me put the case to him. Surely we are anxious to prevent the swallow voter. At the same time you cannot wish, in preventing the creation of swallow voters, to disfranchise a large number of people who happen to move from one home to another—a genuine move—in all of the nine counties which I have specified. Possibly, then, I may be allowed to move to omit the word "fourteen" and insert "eight" That, I think, would meet the case, because then if a man moved on January 6 and he had to be there eight days, it would bring him to the 14th, which is the day before the qualifying day. I ask the leave of your Lordships to withdraw my Amendment and immediately to move to leave out "fourteen" and insert "eight."
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I did not wish to interrupt the noble Viscount, but, on a point of older, are we allowed to speak more than once on Report?
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: No. I am sorry I should have transgressed the rule, but it was almost necessary for me to make an explanation. I should have asked your Lordships' leave before I did so.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not know whether, by leave of the House, I may put a question to the noble Viscount. I am not quite clear what his Amendment is. "Fourteen days" occur in both his Amendments. Which "fourteen" does he wish to omit?
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: In the first Amendment. I drop the second one altogether.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble Viscount proposes to move something else, the Amendment before your Lordships should be withdrawn so that we should have a proper Question before us.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: I now move formally to leave out in line 15 the word "fourteen" in order to insert "eight."
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("eight").—(Viscount Harcourt.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I object to the word "eight" being substituted. Why should you not have the fourteen days which are necessary for him to make a qualification? Why should not these fourteen days be the fourteen days preceding the qualifying period? That is perfectly plain, and if you put in eight days then there is a period after the qualifying period during which it will be necessary to watch this man and to ascertain that he does fulfil the condition of his vote. I must oppose the Amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think it is a little inconvenient that a change of this kind should take place at this stage. I did not deal with the general position because I thought that it was necessary to deal with the exact point of the Amendment, and that it was unnecessary to go further. If the

1187
noble Viscount limits it to eight days only, a diminution from the fourteen days, I think it is obvious that the swallow voter might be rather stronger. Assuming, however, that he does so—and I understand the proposal of the noble Viscount is that, if a man goes into residence on the last day of the qualifying period, he then must stay seven days afterwards in order to make up the eight days—
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: Or I would except the House of Commons' suggestion of thirty days.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am not quite sure what the exact proposal is, and I must deal with one Amendment at a time. Would it not be much better on the whole, your Lordships having gone fully into the matter during the Committee stage, to abide by the decision which was then arrived at. The noble Viscount is very experienced in these matters and, with great ingenuity, has been able to find out certain cases in which this arrangement might work some hardship. But if we put in this Amendment it might be possible that other hardships would arise. After all, the proposal inserted by your Lordships is a perfectly clean and definite date by which time the whole operation is over. The suggestion of the noble Viscount, and also the suggestion which came from another place, was that there ought to be an examination as to what went on after the qualifying period, as to whether a man had or had not left his residence. That would give rise to a good deal of difficulty in administration. I believe it was on this ground that your Lordships decided that the period, whatever it was, that a man must be in continuous residence before the end of the qualifying period, should be a short period of fourteen days, and should end at the last day of the end of the qualifying period. The matter being so balanced, and having been fully discussed in Committee, I would suggest that the House might abide by the decision which it arrived at after full consideration.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I cannot say that I think the result is extremely satisfactory. For the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, has taken the view that people will be incommoded by the retention of the fourteen days in the Bill, whereas, on the statement of my noble friend behind me, they will be not merely inconvenienced
1188
but deprived of the vote, and this deprivation would apply to a quarter of the counties in England, and about half the areas of all the counties. It is hardly possible to speak of that as a small inconvenience suffered by a few persons. Nor is it reasonable to suppose that the lifelong customs of people in these districts to complete their tenancy at a particular date are likely to be easily altered merely because your Lordships pass a particular clause in a Bill. After all, the whole of these dates, the fifteen and fourteen days, have been adopted in order to suit public convenience. They represent a fortnight after what was presumed to be quarter-day, and if in a large part of the country it is not quarter-day, you defeat your object and you cause a great deal more inconvenience, because you practically disfranchise in a very large area of the country every person who changes his residence.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I own I have some sympathy with the Amendment, and for this reason. In order to obtain the necessary residence qualification you must reside during the last fourteen days upon your premises. The noble Viscount pointed out that this would disfranchise a very large number of people. He quoted nine counties where the regular practice is to vacate their dwellings in that very period. Among them were the two counties of Lincolnshire and Yorkshire which, together, cover an enormous extent of country, and I understand there are seven additional counties to be taken into consideration as well. That seems to me to be taking a course which must have the effect, as the noble Viscount points out, of practically, to all intents and purposes, disfranchising an enormous number of people, because it is obvious if they are just about to change their home they cannot reside there during those fourteen days. Whether it is right or wrong that they should be disfranchised in that way is a matter for the House to consider, but I cannot help saying that it seems to me to create a certain difficulty in that respect.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved an Amendment in subsection (2) (a), to leave out "be" and insert "have been." The noble Viscount said: This is a purely drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("be") and insert ("have been").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, in subsection (2) (b), to leave out all the woods after "constituency" where that word secondly occurs down to "by" ["by water"] and to insert "contiguous thereto or separated therefrom." The noble Earl said: This is purely a drafting Amendment, consequential on the decision already taken.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, leave out from ("constituency") to ("by") in line 8, and insert ("contiguous thereto or separated therefrom").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: These Amendments of the noble Earl, as he says, are mainly consequential, and he will not expect me to say very much on them. But I should like to make a reservation in favour of one Amendment which, I think, can hardly be called consequential, and that is the one standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is the big Amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes; and I think I ought to say this. Though this Amendment of the noble Earl may be considered consequential, it has this effect, which I have no doubt the noble Earl has considered (I do not know whether it has been generally considered), that it would mean an increase in the area of successive occupation. I think it will have that effect, but, subject to that remark, I do not wish to say anything further.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The EARL OF SELBORNE The EARL OF SELBORNE moved to leave out the last two words of subsection (2) "parliamentary borough" and to insert "single constituency." The noble Earl said: "This is also a drafting Amendment."
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 12, leave out ("parliamentary borough") and insert ("single constituency").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2:
University Franchise (Men).
2. A man shall be entitled to be registered as a parliamentary elector for a university constituency if he is of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity, and has received a degree (other than an honorary degree) at any university forming, or forming part of, the constituency, or in the case of the Scottish Universities is qualified under section twenty-seven of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, or in the case of the University of Dublin has obtained a scholarship or fellowship in the University whether before or after the passing of this Act.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to insert, after "University of Dublin has," the words "either received a degree (other than an honorary degree) at the University, or has." The noble Viscount said: This is to make it clear that the qualification in respect of scholarships and fellowships at the Irish University is in addition to the ordinary degrees.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 24, after ("has") insert ("either received a degree (other than an honorary degree) at the university, or has").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Local Government Franchise (Men).
3. A man shall be entitled to be registered as a local government elector for a local government electoral area if he is of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity, and—

(a) is during the last fourteen days of the qualifying period occupying, as owner or tenant, any land or premises in that area, and

(b) has, during the whole of the qualifying period, so occupied any land or premises in that area, or, if that area is not an administrative county or a county borough, in any administrative county or county borough in which the area is wholly or partly situate:

Provided that—

(i) for the purposes of this section a man who himself inhabits any dwelling house by virtue of any office, service or employment, shall if the dwelling-house is not inhabited by any person under whom he serves in such office, service, or employment, be deemed to occupy the house as a tenant; and

(ii) for the purposes of this section the word tenant shall not include a person who occupies a room or rooms as a lodger except where such room or rooms are let to him in an unfurnished state.

VISCOUNT PEEL: My next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 30, leave out ("is") and insert ("has").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT VISCOUNT HARCOURT moved, in paragraph (a), to leave out "during the last fourteen days" and to substitute "on the last day." The noble Viscount said: It is I think, necessary to leave out "during the last fourteen days" in this clause. We are dealing with local government voters, and their qualification is different from the Parliamentary franchise. There is no question here of the likelihood of "swallow" voters. The noble Viscount will admit that for the local government vote the voter must occupy for the whole of the qualifying six months in the electoral area as owner or tenant, and that there can be no object in moving in in the last fourteen days. I think these words were retained in error after Lord Camperdown's Amendment had been made.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 30, leave out ("during the last fourteen days") and insert ("on the last day").—(Viscount Harcourt.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I very much regret to say that I did not hear—there was talking going on here—what the noble Viscount said; but I should propose to retain the words as we put them in in Committee.
EARL RUSSELL: Is it not obvious that you may get "swallow" voters in the shape of wives?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think the noble Viscount has to some extent forgotten the fact that successive occupation applies to local government as well as to Parliamentary votes, and if you are to have successive occupation in the one case I think it would be well to keep the same period in the other. I agree that successive occupation is more limited in the case of local government voters, but supposing an area, for instance, is a smaller area than the whole county, an owner or occupier could move freely from one place to another within the larger area. Therefore I think we must have some limiting days as in the case of the Parliamentary franchise.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: I withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in paragraph (a), to substitute "occupied" for "occupying." The noble Viscount said: This is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 31, leave out ("occupying") and insert ("occupied").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved an Amendment in proviso (i). The noble Viscount said: This is not quite a drafting Amendment. It is inserted to meet the point of the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, and it makes it clear that a person will be entitled to the service vote unless he is actually living with the person under whom he serves.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2 and 3, leave out ("any person under whom he serves") and insert ("the person in whose service he is").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My next Amendment is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, leave out ("not").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The next Amendment is also drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 8, leave out ("except") and insert ("only").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:
Franchises (women).
4.—(1) A woman shall be entitled to be registered as a parliamentary elector for a constituency (other than a university constituency) if she—

(a) has attained the age of thirty years; and

(b) is not subject to any legal incapacity; and

(c) is entitled to be registered as a local government elector in respect of the occupation of land or premises in that constituency, or is the wife of a husband entitled to be so registered.

(2) A woman shall be entitled to be registered as a parliamentary elector for a university constituency if she has attained the age of thirty

1193
years and either would be entitled to be so registered it she were a man or, so long as at any university women are not admitted to degrees, has passed such examinations and kept such residence at that university as would entitle her to receive a degree if she were a man.
(3) A woman shall be entitled to be registered at a local government elector for any local government electoral area—

(a) where she would be entitled to be so registered it she were a man; and

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

For the purpose of this provision, a naval or military voter who is registered in respect of a residence qualification, which he would have had but for his service, shall be deemed to be resident in accordance with the qualification.
LORD HARRIS LORD HARRIS moved, after "occupation" in subsection 1 (c), to insert "in that constituency." The noble Lord said: This is an attempt to meet the danger, which I foreshadowed, of large numbers of female "swallow" voters being created in a contiguous constituency. When I said on the Committee stage that it would be desirable to put in some bar to that risk, the noble Viscount, Lord Harcourt, pointed out that we must take care that we did not shut out the male local government voter from exercising his local government franchise as regards a piece of ground he might be occupying, however small. I think that difficulty has been got over now, because the bar is only upon the female with regard to her Parliamentary franchise. The male voter can occupy a piece of land as small as possible and he will have the privilege of his local government vote, but his wife will not be qualified under the husband's qualification unless the occupation is of the value of £5. Her Parliamentary qualification will be in respect only of an occupation of the value of £5.
Amendment moved.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: I agree with the noble Lord that this is an improvement. It would disfranchise a comparatively small number of women, no doubt. But it is contrary to the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference and, as the noble Lord probably remembers, it was rejected by the House of Commons.
VISCOUNT PEEL: This Amendment, I understand, was brought in by my noble friend behind me because the matter was
1194
raised during the Committee stage, and it was strongly pressed that it would be possible, and rather easy, to create a certain number of women Parliamentary voters. Of course, the question does not arise so much as regards men, because I do not think any one has ever wanted to create a large number of faggot local government votes, especially with a largely extended franchise. The noble Lord has limited it, as he said, so that a man does not lose his local government vote for a piece of land, however small; but as a woman's vote depends on the local government vote it would be, no doubt, comparatively easy to create a large number of women voters in respect of land.
LORD HARRIS: Parliamentary voters.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord limits it to land, and excepts votes in respect of other qualifications. I said on the former occasion that the Government did recognise that there was considerable difficulty in the question. I think the noble Lord has also successfully met, as the noble Viscount said, his objection. Therefore if the noble Lord meets the sense of the House in the Amendment, I propose to offer no opposition.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope that the noble Viscount will accept this Amendment. It appears to be profoundly reasonable, and my noble friend who has moved it has taken immense trouble to meet all the difficulties mentioned in Committee.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 16 and 17, leave out ("in that constituency") and insert ("(not being a dwelling-house) of a yearly value of not less than £5 or of a dwelling-house").—(Lord Harris.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PARKER LORD PARKER moved to omit from subsection (2) all words after "or," and to insert "has been admitted to and passed the final examination, and kept under the conditions required of women by the University the period of residence necessary for a man to obtain a degree at any University forming or forming part of a University constituency which did not at the time the examination was passed admit women to degrees."
The noble and learned Lord said: I think that I can explain the object of this Amendment in a very few words. If your Lordships will look for a moment at the words which I propose to strike out you will recollect that they were introduced at the instance of the noble Viscount who had charge of the Bill in Committee, and his object in introducing them was quite clear. It was in order to enable the Universities to give the University vote to women who were otherwise qualified, but who, at Oxford and Cambridge, had not got a degree merely because the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge do not confer degrees on women. I think that that object recommended itself to the unanimous approval of the House, but I doubted at the time, and I still doubt, whether the words which were actually inserted will have the desired effect, and I propose to strike them out and to add a form of words which I think will have the desired effect.
Looking at the words proposed and those proposed to be struck out, your Lordships will see that in the first place the alternative qualification is a qualification which lasts only so long as either Oxford or Cambridge does not confer degrees upon women. I think that is rather resented at the Universities as they could not confer degrees upon women at any future time without disfranchising everybody who is admitted under this Bill. That is a position which we think is undesirable. We do not want our hands to be fettered in that way, and to have to disfranchise people in order to grant degrees. It is perfectly true, of course, that the women who are so disfranchised may be given degrees by the University, but it does not follow that the conditions on which degrees are open to women will be the same as those which women have fulfilled in order to get the vote. Further than that, as your Lordships know, neither Oxford nor Cambridge grant degrees without the payment of a considerable amount of money in the way of fees and otherwise, and it would be unfair to ask women who have had votes for so many years to pay large sums to the University on the condition of continuing themselves in that position. That is the first objection, and I think that it is met by the form of words which I suggest.
The second objection is this. With regard to examinations at Cambridge, I believe that, of the two colleges, Girton has
1196
always adopted and insisted upon a previous examination being passed, but Newnham has not. In the case of the latter the students have been admitted to the higher examinations on the strength that they have passed examinations which the University considers equivalent to the previous examination insisted upon in the case of Girton, so that the reference to the examination which qualifies men for degrees might operate in the case of Girton but certainly would not in the case of Newnham.
With regard to residence I doubt whether at Cambridge any woman does comply with the conditions of residence which are necessary in the case of a man. Therefore I think that the reference should be by means of the words that I propose to substitute. They will, I think, meet all these points. I propose really to make two tests. The women must have passed a final examination. That will apply in the case of Cambridge, because no woman is ever admitted to any final examination except the Tripos. Secondly, each woman must have resided under the conditions required by the University in the case of women for the period necessary to qualify a man. I think those two matters will set everything at rest, and that everybody will be enfranchised. I do not know whether these words apply to Oxford, but I see no reason why they should not.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 22, leave out from ("or") to the end of the subsection and insert ("has been admitted to and passed the final examination, and kept under the conditions required of women by the university the period of residence, necessary for a man to obtain a degree at any university forming or forming part of a university constituency which did not at the time the examination was passed admit women to degrees ").—(Lord Parker.)
EARL RUSSELL: I have a very clear recollection of the discussion in Committee on this point, and I am convinced that the noble and learned Lord has not said anything in this Amendment that he does not intend, but I should like to be quite clear as to what is the actual intention of the Amendment. On the particular point of residence, if I recollect aright, in the discussion in Committee—the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill no doubt has a proper recollection of it—it was suggested that the residence required at the women's colleges was not the same as the residence required at the men's colleges,

1197
and that therefore they would not be qualified by the period of residence required in the case of the man. Does the noble and learned Lord intend by this Amendment to impose upon them, what I understand they cannot have fulfilled, a condition of continuing to reside to the extent necessary for a man in the University, or does he intend to exempt them from that necessity? I rather understood, in the discussion in Committee, that it was suggested that an Amendment would be proposed by the noble and learned Lord which should have the effect of enabling these women to be qualified if they had resided in accordance with the regulations of their Colleges. As I read this Amendment, that is not the effect of it, because they are apparently to have "kept under the conditions" required of women by the University the period of residence necessary for a man to obtain a degree. If that be the intention of the noble and learned Lord, will it not have the effect of disqualifying practically all the women who have passed these examinations?
LORD SHEFFIELD: In regard to the noble and learned Lord's use of the words "they have kept under the conditions required," my impression is that at Cambridge they do no allow casual outsiders to go in for their Tripos. As to women who have resided at Girton or Newnham, the University has been satisfied with the terms of residence for women which are not exactly the same as those for men. As far as the terms of residence are concerned, I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord has consulted the authorities, and is satisfied that these words would cover residence. The noble and learned Lord has made the other conditions for women more indulgent than those for men, because a man cannot, at a University, take his final degree without going through the previous examinations. In the case of Newnham it has not been the practice to take these previous examinations, but instead something which the University considers as an equivalent to them. The question is not a large one. If the University is willing to take them in, I do not think that we need object, because the former students get in rather more easily than the men. At the same time I wish the noble and learned Lord had been able to tell us whether at Oxford the women who had gone on to pass examinations would have fulfilled the conditions.
LORD PARKER: By leave of the House perhaps I may reply to what has been asked of me. I think that the effect of this Amendment is perfectly clear, at any rate to anybody who knows the conditions at Girton and Newnham. This will enfranchise everybody at Newnham and Girton who has passed the Tripos examinations and has resided at her college for that period of time which would be necessary in the case of a man to obtain a degree. That is the object of it. The reason I put in "under the conditions required of women" is that the residence required for men is residence in one of the real colleges of the University, and not in the colleges of Girton or Newnham; but they will reside in Girton or Newnham, and, as soon as they have resided in those colleges for a period, as in the case of a man, to qualify for a degree and to pass an examination, they will be entitled to vote.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: There is a point I should like to mention in regard to the Amendment, which seems to me otherwise perfectly qualified to meet the difficulty which the House desires to meet. The noble Lord's Amendment seems to assume that a University is in the habit of prescribing the conditions in regard to women for residence. I was not aware that the University does itself prescribe. If my noble friend says it does, my difficulty will be removed.
LORD PARKER: It prescribes in the sense of insisting on residence as necessary for admission to an examination.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am very glad to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, because obviously in the previous Amendment it was quite ridiculous that, if a University granted the vote to women, those who previously had the vote under the Bill should be disfranchised.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT VISCOUNT HARCOURT moved to substitute the age of "twenty-one" for "thirty" in subsection (3) (b). The noble Viscount said: I should like to point out that this Amendment does not affect the Parliamentary vote at all. It applies only to the local government vote, and I hope to induce your Lordships to reduce, for local government purposes only, the voting age of women to twenty-one. It is

1199
already, and has been for many years, the qualifying age for a woman who has a qualification of her own for local government purposes. Under the new arrangement by which women are to obtain local government votes through their husbands' qualification under the provisions of the Bill they are to be deprived of the local government vote until they reach the age of 30. Surely it is the married women above all others, the women who are producing and bringing up children, who should be entitled to the local government vote, which concerns so much the health and the welfare of their children. If a single woman at the age of twenty-one acquires a local government qualification—and remember that she can do so by merely taking an unfurnished room as a lodger—she loses it immediately if she marries, say at the age of twenty-two, and for eight years until she reaches the age of thirty, she will have, on her husband's qualification, no power to take an effective part in local government affairs. I have always been in favour of the woman's vote in local government, even in the days when I was against the woman's vote for Parliamentary purposes. We have long thought that single women were fit for the local government vote at the age of twenty-one; I cannot think that we should now decree that the married woman, on her husband's qualification, is unfit for the local government vote until she reaches the age of thirty.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 32, leave out ("thirty") and insert ("twenty-one").—(Viscount Harcourt.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: This point was raised on the Committee stage by Lord Buckmaster, and the House decided, after discussion, not to accept the Amendment. May I point out that no less than 5,000,000 married women over thirty have been added to the local government Register—a far larger number than has ever been added in the case of men. The noble Viscount Lord Harcourt, is still unsatisfied. He wants to extend that arrangement still further, and upset the arrangement arrived at in another place. What is the case as regards married women? The Parliamentary vote was attached to the local government vote, and therefore in the first case these 5,000,000 women received the Parliamentary vote, and the only reason why they were granted the local government vote was that it was pointed out that it seemed to be rather
1200
absurd that they should have the larger vote, the Parliamentary vote, and that they should not have the local government vote. That was done and acquiesced in by this House. But that entirely contravened the old rule that a husband and wife were not to be qualified for local government with respect to the same premises, and now the noble Viscount wants to infringe the same principle still further by applying this extension to married women under thirty. Is not the principle sufficiently clear? When these married women get the vote in respect of their husbands they have to wait until they are thirty, but is that so tremendous a hardship? They will have it in their own right then, and if they get the vote through their husbands surely there is no great hardship that they should wait till the age of thirty. There is a clear distinction between the two cases, and I trust that the House will abide by its decision.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 5:
Special provisions for persona serving on war service.
5.—(1) A person to whom this section applies (in this Act referred to as "a naval or military voter") shall be entitled to be registered as a parliamentary elector for any constituency for which he would have had the necessary qualification but for the service which brings him within the provisions of this section.
The right to be registered in pursuance of the foregoing provision shall be in addition to any other right to be registered, but a naval or military voter shall not be entitled to be registered for a constituency in respect of an actual residence qualification in the constituency except on making a claim for the purpose accompanied by a declaration in the prescribed form that he has taken reasonable steps to prevent his being registered under the foregoing provision for any other constituency.
(2) The statement of any person, made in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner, that he would have had the necessary qualification in any constituency but for the service which brings him within the provisions of this section, shall for all purposes of this section be sufficient if there is no evidence to the contrary.
(3) This section applies to any person who is of the age required under this Act in the case of that person and is not subject to any legal incapacity and who—

(i) is serving on full pay as a member of any of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown; or

(ii) is abroad or afloat in connection with any war in which His Majesty is engaged, and is—

(a) in service of a naval or military character for which payment is made

1201
out of moneys provided by Parliament, or as a merchant seaman, pilot, or fisherman, including the master of a merchant ship or fishing boat and an apprentice on such a ship or boat; or

(b) serving in any work of the British Red Cross Society, or the Order of St. John of Jerusalem in England, or any other body with a similar object; or

(c) in any other work recognised by the Admiralty, Army Council, or Air Council, as work of national importance in connection with the war.

(4) A male naval or military voter who has served or hereafter serves in or in connection with the present war shall notwithstanding anything in this or any other Act, be entitled to be registered as a parliamentary elector if that voter at the commencement of service had attained, or during service attains, the age of nineteen years, and is otherwise qualified.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY had on the Paper an Amendment, at the end of subsection (2), to add the following words: "and the Admiralty, Army Council, and Air Council shall, so far as in their opinion is reasonably practicable and desirable, having regard to the proper conduct of the war, supply each naval or military voter with a copy of the prescribed form of statement which may be sent by such voter by post to the registration officer."
The noble Marquess said: This is one of the Amendments which appear on the Supplementary Paper. Your Lordships are aware that in the case of the naval and military voter, he is qualified for the constituency for which he would have been qualified but for his service, but as that is a very hypothetical and difficult question to answer the Government rely upon the statement of the individual concerned, and they provide that the statement of the individual concerned shall prevail in the absence of other evidence as to what constituency the man would have had a vote for but for his service. Of course, primarily the obligation of finding out who ought to be on the Register or not rests upon the registration officer. But in the case of the naval and military voter the registration officer will be very often placed in a great difficulty, because when he goes his rounds and canvasses he will not really know what naval and military voters used to live in this particular place before the war, and will therefore overlook a very large number of voters and not know even of their existence. Therefore a great deal turns upon this statement of the man himself. If the statement of the man himself could be general it would do away with a
1202
good deal of the difficulty, though not altogether.
I have sought, consequently, to provide in this Amendment that every man shall be asked to make the statement, and that the form in which he can make the statement should be furnished to him. That is the simple proposal which I make dressed up in elaborate language. The form can be sent to the man in the shape of a postcard which he has to fill up, and on that he can state clearly (if he will take the trouble to do it) what his name is, what his regiment is, where he claims to vote; and that statement will be one which will come within the meaning of the clause, and be the statement of the person made in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner that he has had the necessary qualification. It seems so simple an Amendment, and designed so clearly for the purpose of facilitating the registration of these naval and military voters, that I hope that the Government will accept it.
It has been pointed out to me that there is a little difficulty with the words "naval or military voter" in lines 4 and 5 of the Amendment; because, under an Amendment which was agreed to in Committee, these naval and military voters include the merchant service. Therefore I propose to move the Amendment with the following words added after the word "voter" in line 5 of my Amendment, "belonging to the Navy, the Army or the Air Force."
Amendment moved—
Clause 5, page 4, line 19, after ("contrary") insert ("and the Admiralty, Army Council, and Air Council shall, so far as in their opinion is reasonably practicable, and desirable, having regard to the proper conduct of the war, supply each naval or military voter belonging to the Navy, the Army, or the Air Service, with a copy of the prescribed form of statement which may be sent by such voter by post to the registration officer").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am sure that the House recognises the anxiety of the noble Marquess to secure that all these military and naval voters will be able to get on the Register, and to vote; but I am not sure that the Amendment of the noble Marquess is really necessary. First of all, it is suggested by Lord Salisbury that the Admiralty, the Army Council, and the Air Council shall supply each naval or military voter with a copy of the prescribed form of statement. Now, he has limited that already by desiring to omit merchant

1203
seamen and others; but I do not think that even then it is sufficiently limited, because, after all, the people who require this information are mainly those serving abroad.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not entirely.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Perhaps not entirely; but, anyhow, the persons serving at home—and there are a large number of naval and military voters serving at home—will be more in the position of persons who will have Readier access to this information than if they were abroad. I think that the noble Marquess has overlooked to some extent the way in which these naval and military voters are to come on the Register. This is a more important point, because I have, already stated that it was the view of the Government that at least seventy to seventy-five per cent. of these voters would be placed on the Register by the registration officers themselves. Therefore it does not seem necessary to lay this duty (especially with the existing shortage of paper) upon the Admiralty and the Army Council of sending to all these naval and military voters these particular forms, when three-fourths of them will not require them at all. Moreover, although these forms will not be necessary in the case of three-fourths of the men, it has, nevertheless, been arranged (and the Army Council has already agreed) that postcards should be sent to all these naval and military voters, largely for the purpose of checking the arrangements that have been made by the registration officers, and to see that they have not omitted to put on any persons in their different districts. In these circumstances I hardly think that the Amendment of the noble Marquess is necessary; because, in effect, what he wants to be done had been done, only in a somewhat more economical fashion; and provision has been made that these men should not escape being put on the Register, and will not be unaware of the right that they have in that connection. Any of these men, of course, who have not been put on the Register, and then want to make their claim, will have to ask their sergeant or their adjutant.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They never will do it unless it is suggested to them.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It will be suggested to them through the postcard which will tell them what they can do.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Let me ask this question in order to make the matter clear. Does the noble Viscount say that the Government intend to do, even without the Amendment, what I seek to do in my Amendment?
VISCOUNT PEEL: It has been already arranged to be done, although in a slightly different form.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I trust absolutely every word that the noble Viscount says, and if he tells me that the thing is going to be done I do not think it will be worth my while pressing the Amendment. If the noble Viscount gives me a Ministerial engagement to that effect, that will be sufficient for me.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It has been arranged that all these men shall have this postcard informing them what are their rights, and telling them where they can apply. I think that really meets the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This conversation is, of course, rather irregular; but the real point is that, if the Government are sending out a postcard, it is equally cheap to send out an efficient postcard—namely, one that has on it the actual method of making the statement. If the Government are going to send a postcard at all let it be an efficient one; and if the noble Viscount says that the Government will do their best to issue an efficient postcard I will not press the matter.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think I can give an engagement to the noble Marquess that the postcard shall be entirely efficient.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved in paragraph (a) of subsection (3), after "Parliament," to insert "or out of the public funds of any part of His Majesty's Dominions"; and after the first "or" to insert "in service." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is to meet a point which was raised by Lord Burnham—namely, the case of those members of the Dominion Forces who can claim a vote in this country. These words fulfil that obligation.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: Before the Amendment is carried I should like to ask a question. I imagine that a Canadian resident for six months, say, on Salisbury Plain, ran become a voter for that district? I think that these words would apply to a Canadian so qualified the privileges which attach to the naval and military voter—that is, they would make him a voter at nineteen instead of twenty-one; and I think they would enable him to exercise his vote by proxy or by post even after he had left this country for good, if he were serving abroad but with no intention of returning to this country. So long as the war lasted he would be able to exercise a vote although he had left the country for good.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think the noble Viscount knows that a man can exercise a vote as long as he is on the Register. The question of residence applies only during the six months.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: It gives him special facilities?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 29, after ("Parliament") insert ("or out of the public funds of any part of His Majesty's Dominions") and after the first ("or") insert ("in service").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, at the beginning of paragraph (c) of subsection (3), to insert "serving." The noble Viscount said: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 37, at beginning of line insert ("serving").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7:
Supplemental Provisions as to Residence and Occupation.
7.—(1) Where premises are in the joint occupation of two or more persons, each of the joint occupiers shall, for the purposes of this part of this Act, be treated as occupying the premises subject as follows:—

(a) In the case of the occupation of business premises the aggregate yearly value of the premises must for the purpose of the parliamentary franchise be not less than the amount produced by multiplying ten pounds by the number of the joint occupiers; and

1206

(b) For the purpose of the parliamentary franchise in a parliamentary county constituency, and for the purposes of the local government franchise, not more than two joint occupiers shall be entitled to be registered in respect of the same land or premises, unless they are bona fide engaged as partners carrying on their profession, trade or business on the land or premises.

(2) Residence in a house or the occupation of a house shall not be deemed to be interrupted for the purposes of this Act by reason only of permission being given by letting or otherwise for the occupation of the house as a furnished house by some other person for part of the qualifying period not exceeding four months in the whole, or by reason only of notice to quit being served and possession being demanded by the landlord of the house.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The first Amendment on Clause 7 is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 16, after ("Where") insert ("land or").—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD BURNHAM: Before this Amendment is passed I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fresh anomalies that are being created in regard to the occupation franchise. Of course, it is impossible to make our Election arrangements either logical or reasonable, in respect either of the Parliamentary or the local government franchise. The occupation qualification is being rendered more and more anomalous and even ludicrous for the parliamentary franchise. The number of those who qualify as joint occupiers of any premises or land must be found out by multiplying £10 by that number, and the same thing would apply to the £5 qualification proposed by Lord Harris. But in both cases, if the rateable value is £1 below the stipulated amount not one occupier or joint occupier will be qualified. Therefore, if there are six occupiers claiming qualification as joint tenants or partners, and the rateable value falls short of the necessary £60, not one would be qualified. The same thing applies in the case of the local government qualification just introduced by Lord Harris. I suggest that this cannot be seriously intended, because it is obvious that the number ought to be qualified who would be justified by the rateable value, and it seems a great pity that the words have not been so framed as to have that effect. I can hardly believe that this is a final settlement of the occupation franchise There is no object, in a Bill of this great importance, in creating fresh difficulties

1207
which will have to be removed by subsequent legislation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope my noble friend Lord Peel will not think we are unduly inconvenient in pressing him, but here is a very difficult case revealed by my noble friend Lord Burnham. Here we have a difficulty, and I think the Government must meet it. Obviously they do not mean, where there is a rateable value of £55 and six partners, that none of them can have the vote. Yet that is the effect. That cannot be right, and I think the Government must consider the point with a view to meeting it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was only waiting, and I am very glad to answer the point that has been raised. I confess that in my unregenerate days the same point occurred to me, but I am told the answer is this, that if you have, say, six joint occupiers and a rateable value of £50, there will then, if you divide six into fifty be obviously only a qualification of £8 odd apiece. The qualification is £10, and obviously you are not going to give a man a vote for less than the proper qualification. I confess it is rather difficult to see how you can avoid the difficulty. If there are six joint occupiers, and the rateable value is only £50, I suppose five must be joint occupiers and thus get out of the difficulty and acquire the vote. I only wish to remind the noble Lord that this has been the law for fifty years. He may find difficulties and anomalies in it, but it has been the law for such a long period, and I understand it is extremely difficult to make any alteration or drafting which will avoid the difficulty.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HARRIS LORD HARRIS moved, at the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (1), to insert a new paragraph. The noble Lord said: Notwithstanding the ominous warning of my noble friend on the other side, I shall venture to move this Amendment, which is purely consequential on those which I have already moved in an earlier clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 24, at end insert:
"(b) In the case of the occupation of land or premises (not being a dwelling-house) the aggregate yearly value thereof must for the purpose of the parliamentary franchise of women be not less than the amount produced by multiplying five pounds by the number of joint occupiers; and."—(Lord Harris)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved to omit from paragraph (b) of subsection (1) all words from the beginning of the paragraph down to the word "not." The noble Lord said: On the last occasion when the Bill was before your Lordships I indicated that I should move an Amendment of this kind, and I rather understood the feeling of the House to be in favour of it. At any rate the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, was good enough to say he would consider it before this stage. I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, has also put down the same Amendment. He is an authority on these matters, and therefore I am led to suppose that my Amendment must be right. The effect of the words as they now stand in the Bill is to make a distinction between town and country for which I cannot imagine there is any reason. The only difficulty which I can imagine is that in the Speaker's Conference it was proposed that the law should be left alone in this case. The law is apparently going to be left alone in the hopeless state just referred to on a previous Amendment, but I nevertheless suggest that here these particular words might very well be left out, in which case the clause would then read—
"(b) Not more than two joint occupiers shall be entitled to be registered in respect of the same land or premises, unless they are bonâ fide engaged as partners carrying on their profession, trade or business on the land or premises."
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 25, leave out from beginning to ("not") in line 27.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord has undoubtedly put his finger on a very curious anomaly—namely, that in parliamentary counties joint occupiers are limited to two, whereas in boroughs there is a limit of six. I understand the noble Lord wishes to assimilate the position in boroughs to that in the counties. That would make the law much more clear and definite, and on the part of the Government I do not wish to offer any objection if the Amendment is pressed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved, after "premises" where that word first occurs in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), to insert "other than a dwelling-house." The noble Earl said: At the present time a dwelling-house which is worth say £100

1209
a year is occupied by four women. Those women at the present time all have a vote. If the number of persons is limited to two who may be enfranchised, that clearly would disfranchise two of those women. I do not suppose that it is intended to extend this clause to dwelling-houses.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 29, after ("premises") insert ("(other than a dwelling-house)").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am rather surprised to find an Amendment of this kind moved by my noble friend Lord Camperdown, because his desire is that joint occupiers shall be unlimited in the case of a dwelling-house. I thought we had been dealing lately with Amendments to limit the number of faggot voters that can be created, but if we are going to remove the bar in the case of dwelling-houses there would be no limit to the number. I hope he will not press the Amendment. It would be very unusual to make this great distinction between a dwelling-house and other kinds of joint occupations, and I submit also that it would be rather dangerous.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved, at the beginning of subsection (2), to insert the words "Without excluding the consideration of any other cases of alleged interruption which may arise." The noble Lord said: This is a point that was mentioned in the House on the last occasion, and I put down these words, which exactly express what my own meaning was on that occasion, as amicus curiœ. I see the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has an Amendment to the same effect later on, and if he prefers his own Amendment to mine, I will withdraw mine.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 32, at beginning insert ("Without excluding the consideration of any other cases of alleged interruption which may arise").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This is a point which I ventured to raise when your Lordships were in Committee. At that time, this subsection appeared in an earlier clause of the Bill, but the Government
1210
were not willing to accept the full view which I then put forward which had reference to the definition of "residence." I have no preference whatever as between the words I am responsible for and the words in the name of the noble and learned Lord. If I could hope that the Government would accept his words or my words, I would desire to fall in entirely with the view of the Government. I must just say, however, that some words of this kind are necessary. If you make an exception and say that one particular breach in residence does not invalidate a residential qualification, then the natural inference is that every other breach in the residential qualification would so so. It is the almost inevitable consequence. Therefore, as there is this exception and the Government do not intend that intervals in residence shall interfere with residence as a qualification, they must have some other words in order to cover the matter. I will not pretend that I am satisfied, any more than Lord Harris is satisfied, with the word "residence" in the Bill. I believe it will lead to any amount of difficulty hereafter. It is, however, impossible upon that point to contend with noble and learned Lords of the great position of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who told us that the matter had been decided by a series of decisions of the Courts and that the difficulty did not exist. I hope he may be right on this occasion as he almost always is on points of law. As a mere layman, one cannot but be astonished that the particular definition of "residence" as it has been shown to me is really likely to lead to no trouble. I am afraid that to the uninstructed layman it seems to be full of future difficulties. That is a matter which I must leave in the hands of the noble and learned Lords in this House, the greatest lawyers in the land; but I hope we may have a concession on this point, which is an admitted difficulty even by them. If you make an exception in a rule that does have the effect of barring all other exceptions unless you put in some other words to prevent that. I leave it to the Government whether they will accept the words of the noble and learned Lord opposite or my words.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This question was raised at an early stage of the proceedings in Committee, and I then

1211
expressed the opinion which I held and still hold. I have not the least objection, if the House desires to make assurance doubly sure, to accept a form of words which will clear up all possibility of doubt. Of the two forms suggested, I rather prefer the words standing in the name of the noble Marquess, and if Lord Muir Mackenzie will withdraw his Amendment the House will probably accept the Amendment in the name of Lord Salisbury.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I move my Amendment as an addition at the end of subsection (2).
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 39, at end insert ("but the express enactment of this provision shall not affect in any way the general principles governing the interpretation of the expression ' residence ' and cognate expressions").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: I have nothing to say against the acceptance of the Amendment, but I should be glad if the noble Marquess would give us some illustration of what he means by "cognate expressions." If no such explanation can be given, I suggest that the words should be left out.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I suppose they mean expressions akin to "residence."
LORD BUCKMASTER: I asked for an illustration.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The words they are supposed to cover are not merely "residence" but "residing" and all the conjugation of the verb "to reside" which appears in different forms in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8:
Right of person registered to vole.
8.—(1) Every person registered as a parliamentary elector for any constituency shall, while so registered (and in the case of a woman not-withstanding sex or marriage), be entitled to vote at an election of a member to serve in Parliament for that constituency; but a man shall not vote at a general election for more than one constituency for which he is registered by virtue of a residence qualification or for more than one
1212
constituency for which he is registered by virtue of other qualifications of whatever kind, and a woman shall not vote at a general election for more than one constituency for which she is registered by virtue of her own or her husband's local government qualification, or for more than one constituency for which she is registered by virtue of any other qualification.
(2) A person registered as a local government elector for any local government electoral area shall while so registered (and in the case of a woman notwithstanding sex or marriage) be entitled to vote at a local government election for that area, but where, for the purposes of election, any such area is divided into more than one ward or electoral division, by whatever name called, a person shall not be entitled to vote for more than one such ward or electoral division:
Provided that nothing in this provision shall prevent a person voting at an election to fill a casual vacancy except where the casual vacancy is in a borough council, not being a metropolitan borough council.
(3) A naval or military voter who is registered in respect of a qualification which he would have had but for his service shall be deemed for the purpose of this section to be registered by virtue of that qualification.
LORD HARRIS LORD HARRIS moved, in subsection (2), after the word "one" where it secondly occurs, to insert "qualification in"; and to add, after "such ward or electoral division," the words "but at any ordinary or general local government election for that electoral area a person so registered shall not vote for more than one local government qualification in respect of premises in which he is a resident and for one other local government qualification in another ward or electoral division in the same electoral area." The noble Lord said: This is a very important Amendment, and one which might more properly have been brought froward on the Committee stage, but it was only after that stage had been passed that I was asked to introduce it. The object of it is to assimilate as regards local government franchise the privilege that is already given by the Bill as regards the Parliamentary franchise. Your Lordships will observe that the preceding subsection contains almost precisely the same word that I moved to introduce in subsection (2), and if it was accepted it would give to the local government elector an opportunity of exercising the franchise twice—once as regards his residence and once as regards his place of business. As the greater contains the less, it seems surely proper and consistent that if you have given the man the right to exercise the vote twice on matters with which Parliament deals and which are of far greater importance than those dealt

1213
with by local governing bodies, you should give him the same right in connection with local government. Assuming that the Bill, in giving him two votes for a Parliamentary election, says that both as a resident and as a man of business he is a responsible and important person, surely the same thing applies as regards local government matters. By the Speaker's Report it was held out that a new local government franchise was to be substituted for all existing franchises for local government. By subordinate provisions the Bill, as a matter of fact, retains many existing provisions which prevent qualified and responsible electors in certain districts from voting. The object of this Amendment is to remove that restriction, and I am told—naturally my experience there is of no value—that it will simplify registration matters very much indeed. I am told that there is a great deal of "cross starring" (I am informed that this is the right term), particularly in boroughs and municipalities where there are wards cutting up the electoral area, and that there is a great deal of complication as regards a man's right to vote in respect of a place where a man has a place of business or a residence or several places of business. There is much question whether he is to be "starred" as not having the right to vote there. That, to a certain extent, is removed by this Amendment. As the proposal seems to me to be entirely consistent with what has been done as regards the Parliamentary vote and assimilates the two, and as it was held by the Speaker's Conference that there was to be an entirely new local government franchise to be substituted in local government matters, I submit that this is a legitimate proposal, which I hope the Government will accept.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 21, after ("one") insert ("qualification in") and after ("division") insert ("but at any ordinary or general local government election for that electoral area a person so registered shall not vote for more than one local government qualification in respect of premises in which he is a resident and for one other local government qualification in another ward or electoral division in the same electoral area").—(Lord Harris.)
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment. It would enable a man to vote in two wards for local government purposes and would create an enormous number of plural voters at local government elections. In addition it would give votes where none
1214
are allowed under the existing law. The noble Lord referred to the difficulties of what he called "cross starring." They really are not difficulties which occur in practice, and every voter has the right of making a selection on which of his qualifications he will vote. If he makes no selection the law is that the revising barriser shall "star" him for his business, and allow him to vote for his residential qualification.
LORD BURNHAM: The noble Viscount who has just sat down is always aroused by the shadow, the very name, of "plural voting," and he seems to forget that a compromise was arrived at in regard to the Parliamentary vote, with the cordial assent of his colleagues at the Speaker's Conference. I am bound to point out in support of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that in the County of London the greatest confusion and difficulty is caused in registration by the fact that where for Parliamentary purposes at the present time a man may vote in more than one separate borough, that is not the case in regard to County Council elections. Now most of that difficulty has been met by the compromise which was arrived at in the Speaker's Conference. Undoubtedly the feeling there was that we must simplify the existing registration as much as possible, thereby saving expense and relieving the candidates of the charge necessary in every fictitious distinction by reason of what the agents have to do and the number of people they have to employ. That being so, and as it is not a matter of great importance from the point of view of numbers, it surely is desirable to make this a consolidating Statute in that respect. I do not believe there is anybody who would raise questions from the Party point of view, and the main thing is to get the local government Register as much as possible identical with the Parliamentary Register. I suggest that my noble friend's Amendment would do that in a way which would be advantageous from every point of view, and, in fact, it really does not admit of any reasonable objection.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I can agree with one proposition of the noble Lord who introduced this Amendment, and that is that the registration officer would see rather less "stars" than he otherwise would, but I am afraid I cannot agree with his other proposition. He told us he wishes to assimilate the position with the Parliamentary

1215
position, but I think I ought to point out that it is very different from the Parliamentary position. In Parliamentary elections there was plural voting, as the noble Lord knows very well. As a result or the compromise it was decided that in addition to the residence vote—which was going to be the dominating vote—a man should also have a business vote, for £10 qualification, in another constituency. The proposal to give an additional local government vote does not rest upon any compromise of that kind, nor is there any money qualification at all. Previously the law was that a man could not vote at a local election more than once. Therefore what the noble Lord is doing, and at rather a late stage in the Bill, is to introduce a limited plural vote for local government elections. At the present time the law is that in municipal boroughs a man can only be registered once, and vote once, whereas in other local elections a man can be registered in different electoral divisions and, though he can only vote once at a local general election he can, when a casual vacancy occurs, exercise the other vote. The proposal of the noble Lord is a very far-reaching one indeed, and I do not think it is possible for me, on behalf of the Government, to accept this creation of a limited plural vote for local government purposes at this stage of the Bill. I am afraid if I did so I could not console him with the idea that there would be the least chance of the Amendment being accepted in another place.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to omit the proviso at the end of subsection (2) and to substitute other words. The noble Viscount said: This is merely a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, leave out lines 22 to 25 and insert ("Notwithstanding anything in this provision a person may he registered for more than one such ward or division of a local government electoral area (not being a municipal borough), and may vote in any such ward or division for which he is registered at an election to till a casual vacancy").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9:
Provision as to disqualifications.
9.—(1) A person shall not be disqualified from being registered or from voting as a parliamentary elector by reason that he or some person for whose maintenance he is responsible has received poor relief or other alms.
(2) Any person who has been exempted from all military service (including non-combatant service) on the ground of conscientious objection, or who, having been convicted by court-martial of an offence against military law, and having represented that the offence was the result of conscientious objection to military service, has been awarded imprisonment or detention, shall be disqualified during the continuance of the war and a period of five years thereafter from being registered or voting as a parliamentary or local government elector:
Provided that this disqualification shall no apply to any person who, before the expiration of one year after the termination of the war, proves to the central tribunal, as established for the purpose of the Military Service Act, 1916,—

(a) that he has during the continuance of the war taken up and, so far as reasonably practicable, continued either—

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

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

(iii) service afloat or abroad in connection with the war in any work of the British Bed Cross Society, or the Order of St. John of Jerusalem in England, or any other body with a similar object, or in any work recognised by the Admiralty, Army Council, or Air Council, as work of national importance in connection with the war; or

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

(c) that having obtained an absolute exemption from military service without any such condition he has nevertheless taken up and, so far as reasonably practicable, continued some work of national importance or been incapable of so doing;

and obtains a certificate from the tribunal to that effect:
Provided also that no woman shall be disqualified from being registered or voting as a parliamentary or local government elector by reason of any disqualification imposed upon her husband by this section.
The central tribunal established under the Military Service Act, 1916, shall be continued for the purpose of this provision for a period of a year after the termination of the present war.
(3) A person shall not be entitled to be registered or to vote as a parliamentary or local government elector if he is not a British subject, and nothing contained in this Act shall, except as expressly provided therein, confer on any person who is subject to any legal incapacity to be registered or to vote either as a parliamentary or local government elector any right to be so registered or to vote.
(4) A person shall not be disqualified from voting at any election as a parliamentary or local government elector by reason that he is employed

1217
for payment by or on behalf of a candidate at such election, so long as the employment is legal.
(5) Any incapacity of a peer to vote at an election arising from the status of a peer shall not extend to peeresses in their own right.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved, in subsection (1), after "parliamentary," to insert "or local government." The noble Viscount said: I owe your Lordships an explanation of this Amendment. It is put in to meet the difficulty caused by the acceptance of an Amendment which was moved by the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, on the Committee stage. On that occasion he moved to leave out the words "or local government," which meant that the disqualification taken away in a case of the Parliamentary voter was to apply to the local government voter. What I have to point out to the noble Earl is that the position can hardly be left as it is, because it really does not carry out the intention. What does it do? It maintains the qualification for municipal and county electors, which rests upon a statutory basis, but it does not affect the qualification as regards Poor Law guardians. I move to insert these words in order to secure the object which your Lordships had in view—that is to say, that a man should be disqualified from voting for the Poor Law guardians provided he was in receipt of poor law relief. I hope that with this explanation the noble Earl may be satisfied.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 31, after ("parliamentary") insert ("or local government")
line 33, at end insert ("Provided that a person shall not be entitled to be registered as a local government elector for the election of a guardian, or of a district councillor who is to act as guardian, if that person has during the qualifying period received poor relief, which would have disqualified that person from being registered as a parliamentary elector if this Act had not passed").—(Viscount Peel.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We are very much obliged to the noble Viscount, but I think the intention of your Lordships when we struck out the words—it may have been a misdirected effort—was to strike out from the local government Register those who were in receipt of Poor Law relief. That was the object we had in view.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My noble friend, who is a master of the subject,
1218
tells us that we have failed in our object because merely to strike out the words "local government" does not achieve it. What we have done is to strike them out as far as county council elections are concerned and not so far as board of guardians elections are concerned. That is a very good reason, I admit, for modifying the form by which we try to achieve our end, but it does not carry with it the reason for doing what my noble friend proposes—to strike these persons off the Register only for board of guardians purposes and for no other. Our intention was to strike them out for all local government purposes, and for several good reasons. Undoubtedly the strongest case was the case of the guardians. It was generally agreed that to give the pauper a vote for the board of guardians was an absurdity, but my noble friend will find it very inconvenient to have a local government Register in which the elector is entitled to vote for one local government body in his area and not for another—that a man should be on the local government Register which would carry with it a vote for the county council but not for the board of guardians, or for the district council but not for the board of guardians, or for the town council but not for the board of guardians. That would be very inconvenient. It would involve great complication in the Register. But there is more than that. Nothing is more evident, than that the board of guardians as an institution is on its last legs, if I may use such a metaphor, and before very long it will disappear and the Poor Law will be administered by the county councils. It is pretty evident that that is what is going to happen. In those circumstances it will be absurd for the pauper to have a vote for the county council which appoints the committee which is going to give him relief. It is clear that the whole thing should go altogether. I would suggest that instead of moving the long Amendment which stands in his name, the noble Viscount should stop at "local government elector," and go on "if that person has during the qualifying period received poor relief which would have disqualified that person from being registered as a parliamentary elector if this Act had not passed." That is to say, leave out the centre of his Amendment. That would cover what your Lordships intended, and I venture to suggest to the noble Viscount that it would be the best way of dealing with it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I hope the noble Marquess thinks I was endeavouring to carry out your Lordships' intention, because examining the discussion I find that it turned purely on a question of Poor Law relief. But if the noble Marquess assures me the intention was otherwise, I am bound to carry out what the decision of the House was. In these circumstances will the House allow me to withdraw my Amendment and to substitute "provided that a person shall not be entitled to be registered as a local government elector if that person has during the qualifying period received poor relief which would have disqualified that person from being registered as a parliamentary elector if this Act had not passed."
THE MARQUESS of SALISBURY: That is right. We are much obliged to you.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I beg to move the Amendment in the form which I just now read.
Amendment moved accordingly, and, on Question, agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved to leave out subsection (2) and to insert a new subsection. The noble Viscount said: This is brought forward in substitution for subsection (2). It is a re-draft, on the lines suggested by your Lordships, of the whole clause with regard to conscientious objectors. It, of course, carries out entirely the sense of the House, and is merely submitted as a clearer way of expressing what was the intention of the House. One of the decisions which your Lordships arrived at was that those conscientious objectors who had been given unconditional exemption and did certain work of national importance should come before a Tribunal and show that they had so done it. That provision is, of course, included in the draft.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 34, leave out subsection (2) and insert the following subsection:
"(2) Any person being a conscientious objector to whom this subsection applies shall be disqualified during the continuance of the war and a period of five years thereafter from being registered or voting as a parliamentary or local government elector unless before the expiration of one year after the termination of the war he proves to the central tribunal as established for the purposes of the Military Service Act, 1916—
1220

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

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

"(c) that having obtained an absolute exemption from military service without any such condition, he has nevertheless taken up and, so far as reasonably practicable, continued some work of national importance;

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

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

"(b) having been convicted by court martial of an offence against military law, and having represented that the offence was the result of conscientious objection to military service, has been awarded imprisonment or detention.

"The central tribunal established under the Military Service Act, 1916, shall be continued for the purpose of this subsection for a period of a year after the termination of the present war.
"If a person disqualified under this subsection would have been entitled to be registered as a parliamentary or local government elector but for that disqualification, the disqualification shall not extend so as to affect the right of the wife of that person to be registered or vote as a parliamentary or local government elector as the case may be.—(Viscount Peel).
LORD SHEFFIELD: I do not propose to discuss the whole clause, but I have handed in an Amendment. It is in paragraph (c), after the word "nevertheless," to insert "after the passing of this Act." I asked the noble Viscount in the Committee stage, and he said that it was the intention only to make the obligation begin after the passing of this Act. These words, I think, give effect to the undertaking given in the Committee stage.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes to confine it to work done after the passing of the Act.
LORD SHEFFIELD: If you like "before or after."
VISCOUNT PEEL: That will probably meet the point better.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I quite accept that.
EARL RUSSELL: I do not wish to say a word on the merits of this clause which the House has already discussed, but I desire to point out this to your Lordships. It was suggested in the discussion in Committee by the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill that the Government had very little responsibility for this clause, and had really very little to do with it. I then pointed out to the House that the clause as it came up here had been practically entirely redrafted by the Home Secretary in charge of the Bill in another place. We now see before us a second entire redrafting of this clause by the Government. My own belief is that, within a very few years, this clause will be among all right-thinking people an object of very considerable odium and contempt, and I only wish to point out that His Majesty's Government have made themselves responsible for it by accepting the redrafting of it. They have drafted the clause both as it came here and as it leaves this House, and I only rise for the purpose of pointing out that they cannot escape that responsibility.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think that the Government must accept responsibility for the drafting. I do not want either to increase or to diminish any responsibility that they have, but they have, I think, followed strictly what they undertook to do—namely, to accept the decisions of another place and of this House and to put them into proper Parliamentary form. That responsibility as regards the proper Parliamentary form they certainly have, and they accept it, but no further responsibility.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: Do I understand that the noble Account is prepared to accept Lord Sheffield's suggested Amendment in paragraph (c)?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes, in a slightly different form.
LORD SHEFFIELD: With the addition of the words "before or after the passing of this Act."
VISCOUNT PEEL: Yes.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12:
Registration officers and areas.
12.—(1) Each parliamentary borough and each parliamentary county shall be a registration area, and there shall be a registration officer for each registration area.
(2) Where the registration area is a parliamentary county and is coterminous with, or wholly contained in, one administrative county the clerk of the county council, and where the registration area is a parliamentary borough and is coterminous with, or wholly contained in, one municipal borough, the town clerk of the borough, shall be the registration officer for the area.
In any other case such clerk of the comity council, or town clerk, shall be registration officer for the area as the Local Government Board may by order direct, subject to any conditions which may be made by the order as to the appointment of deputies for any part of the area.
(3) Any of the duties and powers of the registration officer may be performed and exercised by any deputy for the time being approved by the Local Government Board, and the provisions of this Act shall apply to any such deputy so far as respects any duties or powers to be performed or exercised by him as it applies to the registration officer.
(4) In the event of any vacancy in the office of any clerk of the county council or town clerk who is a registration officer, or in the event of his incapacity to act, any acts authorised or required to be done by or with respect to the registration officer may be done by or with respect to any person temporarily appointed in that behalf by the chairman of the county council or the mayor, as the case may be.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg to move the Amendments which stand in the name of my noble friend Lord Selborne. I am informed that they are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 9, lines 1 and 2, leave out ("parliamentary borough and each parliamentary county") and insert ("constituency")
lines 4 and 5, leave out ("parliamentary county and is")
line 7, leave out ("a parliamentary borough and is").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 14:
Appeals.
14. (1) An appeal shall lie to the county court, as defined by rules of court, from any decision of the registration officer on any claim or objection which has been considered by him under this Act, or the placing of or refusal to place any mark against any name on the register, and rules of court shall be made for the purpose of determining the procedure on any such appeals and for applying and adapting thereto any enactments relating to county courts and the procedure therein:
Provided that an appeal shall not lie where a claimant or objector has not availed himself of this opportunity of being heard by the registration officer on the claim or objection.
(2) An appeal shall lie on any point of law from any decision of the county court on any such appeal from the registration officer in accordance with rules of the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeal, but no appeal shall lie from the decision of the Court of Appeal.
(3) The right of voting of any person whose name is for the time being on the register shall not be prejudiced by any appeal pending under this section, and any vote given in pursuance of that right shall be as good as if no such appeal were pending, and shall not be affected by the subsequent decision of the appeal.
(4) Notice shall be sent to the registration officer in manner provided by rules of court of the decision of the county court or of the Court of Appeal on any appeal under this section, and the registration officer shall make such alterations in the electors lists or register as may be required to give effect to the decision.
(5) On any appeal under this section the registration officer shall be deemed to be a party to the proceedings.
(6) If the Lord Chancellor is satisfied on the representation of the judge of any county court that the judge is unable, owing to the necessity of dealing with appeals under this Act, to transact the business of the court with proper despatch, the Lord Chancellor may appoint a barrister of at least seven years' standing to act as assistant judge for such time as the Lord Chancellor may direct, and subject to any conditions which he may impose.
Any assistant judge so appointed shall have all the powers and privileges and may perform any of the duties of the judge, whether under this Act or otherwise, to whom he has been appointed assistant.
An assistant judge shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament such remuneration and travelling allowances us may be allowed by the Treasury.
In the application of this provision to a county court district the whole of which is within the Duchy of Lancaster, the Chancellor of the Duchy shall be substituted for the Lord Chancellor.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved in subsection (1), after "by rules of Court," to insert "on any point of law." The noble Lord said: I have put down several Amendments on this clause. The Speaker's Conference recommended that there should be in these registration cases an appeal to the County Court, and in the Amendments that I have put down I am far from trying to go in any way behind that decision. On the contrary, the object of my Amendments is to try to make the scheme work as well as possible, and with the good will of those who have to work the clause. The first Amendment that I have put down is to insert in line 11, after "rules of Court" the words "on any point of law." The effect
1224
of that is to limit the appeal to the County Courts from the registration officer, and that there should not be an appeal upon points of fact. There are two main reasons for that. One is the obvious one that it will diminish the burden that is thrown upon the County Courts by the proposal as it stands. There is no doubt, I think, that a very considerable burden will be thrown upon the Courts, and the Bill itself shows that that is anticipated, because there is provision made for assistance to be given to the County Court Judges who find that in consequence of this they have actually too much to do, or that their business is thrown out of gear by the introduction of this new matter. That there should be an appeal on a point of law I quite understand, and I support it as a good thing, but one of the objections which I think is very strongly felt by the Judges themselves is that it introduces a class of cases before them with which not only are they not familiar, but which brings them into the atmosphere of politics in a way that is not desirable. It is, of course, upon questions of fact and not upon law that that aspect would arise. Not only would my proposal relieve them of a considerable burden, but it would also have the effect of relieving them from that particular class of thing which I think it is not desirable should be brought into the Courts.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 11, after ("court") insert ("on any point of law").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: I think that it is of vital importance to the voters that they should retain, as they have at present, the power to make an appeal on points of fact as well as upon points of law. Under the existing registration law there is, on questions of fact, an appeal from the overseer who is the compiler of the Register to the revising barrister, and I am sure that if the noble Lord had ever taken part in registration courts—I do not suppose that he has—he would know that in most cases it is a question of fact which the revising barrister has to decide. Now the compiler of the Register will be the registration officer, and some appeal on fact from his decision seems to be absolutely necessary, because he will only have the same sources of information as the previous compilers, and, as is well known to all of us, many mistakes used to be made on the first lists. The County Court is very competent to

1225
deal with facts. Nearly all the judgments of the provincial County Courts are now based upon finding of fact, and I think that it would be a great hardship on the future electors if they were to be deprived by this Amendment of an appeal on fact as well as on law.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Do I understand that the revising barristers are to continue?
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: No.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Otherwise I most heartily support the present Amendment because the County Court Judges have a great deal to do as it is, and, with the new Schedules, I do not think that for the next year the County Courts will be able to discharge their own proper functions. It is most unreasonable that you should give an appeal on questions of fact. It will probably shut out the persons who are most entitled to consideration—namely, the poor—because you abolish the revising barrister and you are to give an appeal on fact. I have known an appeal on the question whether a door was an inner or outer door to last twelve hours. If that sort of appeal is to be admitted to the County Court you might as well suspend the proper functions of the County Court for a year or two.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This question has been considered. In the first instance I believe the Bill was introduced into the Commons proposing an appeal on questions of law, but there was a very strong feeling there that the appeal should be extended to questions of fact, and to my mind there are very good reasons for it. You very often have questions of law and questions of fact very much mixed up together. In the old days where you had the revising barristers, trained lawyers familiar with this sort of point, dealing with the cases, the appeal from the revising barrister was only to the Court on questions of law. That is perfectly right, because you had the matters dealt with satisfactorily and the issues of fact separated from the issues of law. But here you will have the whole matters dealt with by the registration officer, and I cannot help thinking that it would be very unfortunate if there were no means of getting a miscarriage set right because it turned out to be rather a question of fact
1226
than of law. I am sure that my noble and learned friend who has just spoken will recognise that it is extraordinarily difficult in a great many cases to draw the line between questions of fact and questions of law. One has illustrations of it every day in cases which even come as far as your Lordships' House. I have given some thought to this matter, and upon the whole I have come to the conclusion that the alteration made in the Commons in the Bill as originally introduced was right, and that the appeal should not be confined purely to questions of law. You might have a great many discussions, and very subtle discussions, as to whether it was a question of law or a question of fact, and it would save time in the end and prevent injustice if the appeal were left in the form which it assumed in the Commons. I am, of course, keenly sensible of what my noble and learned friend has said as to taking up the time of the County Court. But provision has been made in the Bill to meet that point, because there is power given for the appointment by the Lord Chancellor of additional Judges to help the County Court in dealing with its own work, plus the work that will be put upon it by this Bill. And I hope this will enable the County Courts to get through the ordinary litigation that falls to their share without in any way interfering with the discharge of the additional duties which this Bill proposes to throw upon them. For these reasons, although the matter is one which admits of discussion, I have arrived at the conclusion that the decision taken to alter the Bill was right.
LORD BURNHAM: When the noble Lord replies, I should like to put a question to him as to the scale of payment under this clause. My concern is not so much for the legal profession as for the public purse, and when the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack tells you that it is within his power to appoint barrisers of not less than seven years standing to take the place of County Court Judges where these functionaries are unable to discharge these new duties satisfactorily, in addition to the many other legal matters that they have to deal with, I fancy a good many will be appointed. In fact, I doubt whether there will be very much change from the system of revising barrisers as it now prevails. I imagine that the revising barrister will have a new birth for this purpose in the County Court. I should like to know on

1227
what scale remuneration is paid. It says in subsection (6) that he is to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament on a scale settled by the Treasury. Will that scale be submitted to Parliament or has it already been drawn up?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Is not the question that we are on Lord Muir Mackenzie's Amendment
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think it is; and I am afraid I cannot give any definite answer to the noble Lord, except this, that I understand that the scale of charges will be laid before Parliament. The noble Lord knows that it is a common practice in the case of a great many of these Bills that the scale of charges is settled by the Treasury in the usual way.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I admit I have felt very uneasy indeed about the question raised by this Amendment. County Courts may be very heavily overladen with work, and they may be called upon to decide questions of fact second-hand after the registration officer has already heard and determined them himself. I cannot quite accept the view of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that questions of fact are so incapable of being distinguished from questions of law that confusion may arise if you confine the appeal under Clause 14 to a question of law, since, as I understand him to suggest, you will have the appeals brought anyhow, and the argument made that they are questions of law when, in reality, they are questions of fact. But, as the appeal from the County Court Judge himself is simply on a question of law, it is plain that the distinction between the question of fact and the question of law has to be determined at some stage of the procedure, and I do not see why it should be more difficult to determine it at the initial stage than at the later one. The thing that concerns me most is this. Are these appeals that are brought from the registration officer to the County Court appeals that are brought at the risk of the appellant as to his costs? If there is a long hearing and the appeal fails, can he be ordered to pay the costs of the registration officer? Because, if there be that protection, then it seems to me that trivial and unreal questions will not be raised. But unless that protection is there I should certainly feel inclined to support the Amendment of the noble Lord to limit these appeals to questions of law.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I understand that, by the ordinary Rules of Court, he would have to pay the costs in the ordinary way if the litigant failed.
LORD BUCKMASTER: If that is so, it is all right.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT VISCOUNT HARCOURT moved the addition of words in subsection (1) immediately before the proviso. The noble Viscount said: I am sure we should feel that it would be intolerable for any voter to be debarred, on the ground of expense, from establishing his claim to the franchise. Under the existing law he can appear, without costs, before the revising barrister, a man who has had seven years at the Bar, and, perhaps, has had many more years in trying knotty registration points of this sort every year. Surely this advantage is not to be taken away now. It ought to be as easy in the future as it is now for a man to have his case decided by a competent lawyer; and with reference to what my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster said just now, at the end of my Amendment appear the words, "that no costs be allowed to any party unless the Court is of opinion that the action of any party to the proceedings has been frivolous or vexatious."
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 17, at end insert ("but such rules of court shall provide that no fees be charged in the case of any such appeal, and that no costs be allowed to any party unless the court is of opinion that the action of any party to the proceedings has been frivolous or vexatious").—(Viscount Harcourt.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: This Amendment is precisely similar to the one raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, in the Committee stage; and I am afraid that I am unable to give the noble Viscount any other answer than the one which I gave to the noble Lord. With regard to the fees, the matter was moved in the other House, but resisted there by the Government on the ground that the fees were very small, and that there must be some sort of limitation to the number of cases brought before the Court. As regards the question of costs, I fear that if I accepted the

1229
Amendment it would go exactly contrary to what I have just said to Lord Buckmaster; because I told the noble and learned Lord that the costs would follow the event. If the Amendment were accepted, anybody who was a successful plaintiff (or whatever he might be called) though he might win he would not get his costs under the ordinary Rules of the Court. In these circumstances I cannot accept the Amendment. I am also advised that the question of deciding whether a case is frivolous and vexatious is a very difficult one, and it would not be easy for Judges to apply a Rule of that kind.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE had the following Amendment upon the Paper: Page 10, line 19, after ("opportunity") insert ("as provided in the Schedule hereto"). The noble Lord said: In my view this is only a drafting Amendment, but I do not know whether the noble Viscount looks upon it as such.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord has left the question of the Schedule rather vague.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: It is the First Schedule.
VISCOUNT PEEL: If the noble Lord inserts the word "First," I have no objection to the Amendment.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I will move it in that form.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 19, after ("opportunity") insert ("as provided in the First Schedule hereto").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The next Amendment standing in my name is merely consequential upon an Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, which I accepted at an earlier stage; but I prefer to move it in a different form from that on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 20, at the end insert ("or as to the placing or refusing to place any such mark as aforesaid").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved to omit from subsection (2) all words after "Supreme Court to," and to insert "the High Court, whose decision shall be final." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is that the appeal from the County Court, instead of going, as provided in the Bill, direct to the Court of Appeal, shall go to the High Court, which would mean to a Divisional Court of the King's Bench Division. The reasons for my suggesting that are these. In the first place, the King's Bench Division is the Court to which appeals both in election cases and in registration cases already go, and have gone for a great many years. It appears to me that it is the obvious Court to which they ought to go. Further, it is the Court to which all appeals from County Courts (with the exception of those under the Workmen's Compensation Act) already go; and unless there is some very strong reason for making them go direct to the Court of Appeal I do not see why it has been so provided. I think, however, there might be this reason—namely, that it might be thought more proper to have one appeal only, in the Court of Appeal, than to put an end to the appeals in the King's Bench Division. But I do not think there is really anything in that. The King's Bench Division are competent to do the work. There is the very strong additional reason that the King's Bench Division is at present more than up to its work; the lists which were published the other day show that they have comparatively little business to do now, and at the very time when you want to get this work carried through rapidly. On the other hand, the Court of Appeal is more than full up with work and could not possibly set aside days to take up these things. I therefore move my Amendment, the effect of which is to give the appeal to the High Court instead of to the Court of Appeal.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, leave out lines 24 and 25, and insert ("the High Court, whose decision shall be final").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope that my noble friend will in the end agree with me that it is better for the clause to stand as it now is in the Bill. My reasons for saying that are several. In the first place, the taking of an appeal straight from the County Court to the Court of Appeal follows the precedent of the Workmen's Compensation Act, an Act with which my noble friend is very familiar. I think

1231
such a course tends to give a unity of decision which cannot be attained if appeals were made to any other Court. The County Court Judges, I am informed, are strongly opposed to the Amendment which my noble and learned friend has brought forward, and those who have experience of the working of the Court of Appeal are definitely against the proposal to substitute the Divisional Court. There are one or two considerations which I should like to bring to your Lordships' notice. The constitution of the Divisional Court necessarily fluctuates very much from week to week and sometimes from day to day. You have not the same Judges sitting continuously, as you used to have in the old days of the Courts in banc, to which some of us are able to look back. There is considerable disadvantage in having Courts which fluctuate in their composition from time to time to deal with questions of this nature which are of considerable public importance. Decisions may be given affecting the enfranchisement or disfranchisement of considerable numbers of people, and it is surely desirable that in such circumstances the Court should be one which commands public confidence, when the decision is to be final. No one would like to have the decision of the Divisional Court subject to an appeal to the Court of Appeal. It would double the expense, and on the whole I put it to your Lordships that although this Amendment has been brought forward by my noble and learned friend, it is desirable that the appeal should follow the precedent of the Workmen's Compensation Act and go straight to the Court of Appeal, which sits with a more or less uniform composition and does not fluctuate in com position so much as the Divisional Court. Therefore I hope the Amendment will not be accepted.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved an Amendment in subsection (6). The noble Lord said: The remainder of the Amendments to this clause which stand in my name deal with one subject, the general purport of which is that the County Court Judge shall in these cases, as in others, appoint his own deputy, and that the work under this Act shall be done by the deputy or assistant Judge, leaving the Judge to do his own work—that the Judge should not leave his own work to be done by what I may call the journeyman, but that he should appoint as his deputy for the purpose
1232
of this Act a man who, although he may not be familiar with the ordinary County Court work, is likely to do well the particular work which arises under this Act. I think it would be particularly annoying that a dispossessed revising barrister should be appointed to do the registration work, and that then the County Court Judge should do that work with which he is unfamiliar, leaving the assistant Judge to do the ordinary County Court work with which the assistant Judge is not familiar. I therefore move the first of these Amendments, and whether I shall proceed to move the remainder depends upon your Lordships' decision.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, lines 2 and 3, leave out ("owing to the necessity of dealing") and insert ("both to deal").—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would ask your Lordships to leave the Bill as it now stands upon this point. The object of this series of Amendments is to define the work which is to be done by the County Court Judge and by the assistant Judge. I submit to your Lordships that we had much better leave that to be settled by the County Court Judge, with the advice of the assistant Judges. Of course, in some cases it may be much better that the registration work should be dealt with, in the first instance at all events, by the County Court Judge, while in other cases he may consider that he can better devote himself to the proper work of his Court, leaving the assistant Judge, who may have special experience in registration matters, to deal with those cases. That I think may be left to be settled by the Judges, and on the whole I should deprecate making the changes which this series of Amendments proposes.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I shall not move the other Amendments which stand in my name.
Clause 16:
Special provisions with respect to urban districts and London.
16.—(1) Where an urban district is coterminous with a registration area which is a parliamentary borough or is wholly contained in such area, this Part of this Act shall apply to that district as it applies to a municipal borough, with the substitution of the clerk of the urban district council for the town clerk, of the urban district council for the council of the borough, of the general district rate for the borough fund or borough rate, and of the chairman of the council for the mayor.
(2) Any reference to a municipal borough in this Part of this Act shall include a reference to a metropolitan borough and the City of London, with the substitution, as respects a metropolitan borough, of the clerk of the metropolitan borough council for the town clerk, and of the metropolitan borough council for the council of the municipal borough, and as respects the City of London, of the Secondary for the town clerk, and of the common council for the council of the municipal borough.
Any registration expenses of a metropolitan borough council shall be paid as general expenses of the council, and any expenses of the common council shall be paid out of the general rate.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR, on behalf of the EARL of SELBORNE, moved, at the beginning of the clause, to leave out "which is a Parliamentary borough." The noble Lord said: This is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 30, leave out ("which is a Parliamentary borough").—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BURNHAM LORD BURNHAM moved, after Clause 16 the insertion of a new clause "Special provisions as to registration of freemen, etc." The noble Lord said: In the Committee stage the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill was good enough to say that he would accept an Amendment in this sense. The words have been carefully drafted and I think they have high authority, and I do not think it is necessary to re-state the case.
Amendment moved—
Insert as a new clause:
"Special provision as to registration of freeman, &c.
"A freeman of the City of London being a liveryman of one of the several companies who is entitled to be registered as a parliamentary elector in respect of a business premises qualification within the City, shall be entitled if he thinks fit, to be entered in a separate list of liverymen in the register of parliamentary electors and to record his vote for Parliament as a liveryman.
"(2) The foregoing provision shall apply to the freeman of any borough if the council of the borough so resolve, and the expression" freemen "shall include any persons by whatever name called enjoying in that borough rights similar to those enjoyed by freemen of the city of London in that city."—(Lord Burnham.)
THE EARL OF JERSEY: I have been asked to support the Amendment which has just been moved, and more especially the second subsection, on behalf of the freemen of the City of Oxford. I have no doubt that the freemen of other cities would welcome such an Amendment, if your Lordships accept it, but personally I am only concerned to try and establish a case for those who have asked me
1234
to represent their interest. I do not propose to ask your Lordships to listen to a review of the history of Oxford for the last thousand years, though I believe that any one who could lay claim to an accurate and detailed knowledge of the history of Oxford would have a more than superficial knowledge of the history of England. I will content myself with reminding your Lordships that many Parliaments have met in that historic city, and that among others in the year 1258 the Provisions of Oxford were there enacted, which historians tell us are the basis of our present system of representation. Incidentally, I have often wondered why, having told us that, they usually add that that Parliament is known as the Mad Parliament; but I do not propose to trace that particular analogy this evening. I do, however, suggest that special consideration should be given to a city where these Provisions were enacted, at a time when the representation of the people is under review. In one particular respect the claim of the freemen of the City of Oxford is based on a very sure foundation, because they have a very definite legal right to be included in any concession which is made to the liverymen of the City of London. The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, said—
"I believe there are many other ancient and honourable corporations which, if the case of the City of London be conceded, have a case which appears to be almost unanswerable."
May I read a brief extract from the Charter of Henry II, which is the Charter on which the freemen of the city of Oxford really base their claims—
"Know that I have granted and confirmed to my citizens in Oxenford all liberties and customs and laws and quittances which they had in the time of King Henry my grandfather, and they are to have all other customs and liberties and laws of their own which they have in common with my citizens of London. And that they serve wine at my feasts with those of my Butlery, and do their traffic with them, within London and without and everywhere. And if they doubt or dispute about any legal judgment, let them send their messengers to London on the point, and hold to the decision of the Londoners…for they and the Citizens of London have one and the same custom and law and liberty."
Well, my Lords, in view of that Charter I think it will hardly be denied that the freemen of the city of Oxford are entitled to be treated in the same way as the liverymen of the city of London. I would have your lordships observe that they do not claim any extension of the franchise, but merely the retention of privileges which they have valued and cherished for several

1235
hundred years, and which (I would also ask you to observe) have been reserved to them in every Reform Act hitherto. The noble Lord, Lord Burnham told us, when he spoke on the subject on a previous occasion, that this Amendment was really brought forward from a sentimental point of view, and I am sure your Lordships will agree that it would be a sorry thing if sentiment were altogether eliminated from our daily life. If sentiment is to be preserved anywhere I would suggest that it should be maintained in Oxford of all places where every building and every stone is redolent of ancient traditions. I am sure I shall not appeal in vain for the sympathy of the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill. I see here many other noble Lords who by their associations with Oxford have added lustre to the record of that University. If they suggest that their associations were academic rather than civic may I remind them that the ancient feud between Town and Gown has long become a thing of the past, and that that hereditary feud has accompanied other hereditary traditions and institutions which have been swept away, by what is called progress, if not into the realms of oblivion, at any rate into the annals of the past; and it would be a very fitting thing if they were to show their appreciation of the hospitality which they received from the city of Oxford in bygone days by allowing the freemen of that City to retain those privileges which are so dear to them. I certainly do not wish to introduce anything of a controversial nature into the Bill but I would remind your Lordships that these privileges in no way affect the principle of the Bill. This concession would mean nothing to anyone except to those whose cause I plead. It means the retention of rights which have been handed down to them through successive generations and which they have jealously guarded. I would submit that it is on traditions of this sort that the very best features of our national life are founded, and, therefore, I would ask your Lordships to accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: When I opposed the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, in the Committee stage, I did so because it created an additional franchise. I understand that the wording of this Clause as it is now drawn, adds no franchise whatever.
LORD BURNHAM: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: And no freeman or liveryman will be able to vote without a business qualification.
LORD BURNHAM: That is so.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: And that same limitation applies to any other cities. In these circumstances I make no objection, and I am very glad that those who wish to retain historic rights can do so under a separate heading or category in the Register.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am very glad to accept Lord Burnham's portion of the clause, and to say, as Lord Crawford said, that we will not only accept it but do our best to persuade the authorities elsewhere to accept it also. I do not make the same promise about the subsidiary part of the Amendment extending it to Oxford and other towns, but my noble friend also, I think, pointed out that it would be difficult to restrict it to London, and that there was no reason why if we accepted it for London it should not be accepted for other places. I do not wish to oppose the extension of it, because I do not think it is possible to draw any distinction between the two causes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19:
Modification of method of voting in certain constituencies.
19.—(1) In a constituency returning not less than three nor more than five members of Parliament any contested election of the full number of members shall be according to the principle of proportional representation, each elector having one transferable vote as defined by this Act.
(2) At a contested election for a university constituency, where there are three or more members to be elected, any election of the full number of members shall be according to the principle of proportional representation, each elector having one transferable vote as defined by this Act.
(3) His Majesty may by Order in Council frame regulations prescribing the method of voting and transferring and counting votes, at any election, according to the principle of the transferable vote and for adapting the provisions of the Ballot Act, 1872, and any other Act relating to parliamentary elections thereto, and with respect to the duties of returning officers in connection therewith, and any such regulations shall have effect as if they were enacted in this Act.
(4) Nothing contained in this Act shall, except as expressly provided therein, affect the method of conducting parliamentary elections in force at the time of the passing of this Act.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH moved, in subsection 2, to substitute "two or more members" for "three or more members." The noble Lord said: The subject to which I wish to call your Lordships'

1237
attention is a very small one. At the same time it is one of some importance. At a late hour last Tuesday your Lordships agreed, by a vote of a very narrow character—31 to 30—and with some hesitation expressed on the part of certain members of the majority, to alter the Bill as it then stood before you in this respect. The Bill proposed that the principle of proportional representation should be applied to two-Member Universities. That is to say to Oxford, Cambridge, and I believe in circumstances that will be before us but are not now immediately before us, to Dublin also. It was proposed by the Earl of Plymouth that that application of proportional representation should be withdrawn from the two ancient Universities, which should vote in the future as they have in the past, giving them two Members supported by the majority of the burgesses of the University. It is a very small matter indeed, and I venture to submit reasons for thinking that in practice it will be found that under one or other system much the same result will prevail. But I think it is extremely desirable that you should not in any way prejudice the application of proportional representation generally by giving an opportunity to people to say "You withdraw it whenever you see it will operate against Liberal interests or Liberal principles or the representation of Liberalism." It is most undesirable that occasion should be given to any person to bring this allegation, especially when there is no substance whatever in it. No doubt it is an anomaly that proportional representation should be applied to two-Member Universities while it is not proposed to apply it to other two-Member constituencies, if they ultimately remain in our system of Parliamentary election. The aim of many of us is to limit the number of two-Member constituencies, but it is not proposed to alter the two-Member Universities. I submit to your Lordships that it is not desirable that the accusation of an anomaly should be sufficient to induce you to remove what has been adopted and supported—namely, the application of the principle of proportional representation to the Universities, which was part and parcel of the Speaker's Conference unanimously agreed upon. No doubt; it was proposed there in a little different shape. What was suggested at the Speaker's Conference was that University electors should be confined in those cases to "one man one vote." There was no right given to spread
1238
over the power of the Party so as to bring in as many candidates as it could secure the election of. Supposing you had 20,000 electors, as might be the case in a University and you are confined to one man one vote the first man might get 15,000 votes and the next man come down to a very small number, while the other men who come below cumulatively might bring victory to a different candidate. The application of proportional representation to such a case simply provides for an equal distribution of the votes at the disposal of any particular party in the representation of the community. Therefore the original proposal of the Speaker's Conference, that each elector should have only one vote and give it to one person, was qualified by the addition that it should be a single transferable vote, thus securing the application of proportional representation. It is said that is very anomalous; why in Universities alone where there are two Members, should you secure that there will be representatives of the bigger and smaller parties? The reason is that this was approved by the Speaker's Conference, and supported by the House of Commons, and it conies up to your Lordships' House in that form.
If you make the alteration, and send it back to the House of Commons with the support that was accorded to the change you will, I am afraid, be open to the ill-fortune of finding your alteration rejected in another place, and then consenting to the rejection. And the adoption of the rejection of the proposal will be accompanied by expressions which I, for my part, should strongly deprecate in relation to the action of your Lordships' House. I would save your Lordships' House from any risk of having to abandon your position in the end, and I would save your Lordships' House from insinuations that you have been acted upon by Party feeling in the adoption of the change you sanctioned in Committee stage. I do not think it will lead to any result. Nobody can say what will be the exact composition of the electorate of Universities in the future. It is supposed that the number of voters will be nearly double and that where you have 10,000 now, you will get 20,000. They will be Bachelors of Arts and those who have not proceeded to the higher degrees, and also women voters. I confess to the opinion that you will find, as you have found in University elections, a strongly predominant Conservative opinion. I find no fault with

1239
that. I recognise that it is quite proper and just that persons should hold any opinion they choose, and get their representatives accordingly. But there is a strong predominance of Conservative opinion in Universities and, in my own judgment, I believe after a short time, if not immediately, that the two members for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge would continue to be Conservative, as they have been in the past, and that the application of proportional representation, or not, would produce no change in the character of the representation.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if for one moment I address you with one or two considerations of arithmetic. If the Conservative power in Universities is two-thirds of the number of the persons brought to the electorate, or in any way exceeds two-thirds, then Conservative power will be able to secure both seats, whether you have proportional representation or not. Therefore, I believe my Lords, if you went to the University of Cambridge—with which I am better acquainted than I am with Oxford—under the new system, with proportional representation, the effect would be that the two sitting Members would offer themselves for re-election, they would act together in addressing their electors, and say, "vote for one of us first, but, whatever you do vote, for the other one second. Place either of us you like first, but do put the other second," and, in that way they could bring all their powers to bear on the election, and if they secured two-thirds of the electorate the two existing Members, if they stood, would be again re-elected. Probably the same thing is true of Oxford University. There is no doubt that under the stimulus of an added electorate, there would be some other competitors offering themselves for election, but against the strong opposition of the sitting Member, supported by the machinery I have described, I believe the result would be very much the same. So far as Party interests are concerned, I am fighting for nothing, one way or the other. But I feel it is unwise to pass, by a small vote of 31 to 30, and send down to the House of Commons the rejection of a clause which originated in the Speakers Conference as part of their unanimous recommendations, supported after discussion in the House of Commons, and which came up to your Lordships' House in the shape which I venture to hope, you will return unaltered.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 29, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").—(Lord Courtney of Penwith.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: There was a very full discussion on this point when the House was in Committee stage, and the noble Lord, I understand, wishes to reverse the decision which was then arrived at. It was perfectly true that, as the Bill came up, it applied the single transferable vote to the double-Member Universities, and the House decided it should not be applied to the two-Member Universities but only to the three-Member Universities. On behalf of the Government I put the matter as best I could, somewhat on the lines which the noble Lord has stated now, but the House was against me and, I would suggest—
LORD COURTNEY: Only by a small majority.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It was a small majority, but the question was thoroughly discussed, and, as it is rather a thin House at the present moment, I think it might be wise to let another place decide the matter. As regards what the noble Lord said, that there was any suggestion of Party bias, I think it is only fair to say, having examined the Division List on that occasion, that there is no basis for the allegation at all. In fact, there was a great deal of cross voting. I hope the House will reject the Amendment and let it be decided elsewhere.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I quite agree with the attitude taken up by the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill. I venture to think, after some experience in your Lordships' House, that it is always a mistake to reverse, on Report, what it has done in Committee unless there is some very good reason alleged. I do not pretend to be strongly in favour of what was done in Committee, but I was in favour of it on the arguments put before us, and to reverse on Report what was done in Committee is, prima facie, a mistake. On the bare argument there is no reason why you should apply proportional representation to two-Member Universities any more than to any other two-Member constituency. They ought apparently to stand on the same footing. I think the noble Viscount is well advised in the course he has taken, and that it is better not to alter what has been done in Committee.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Polls to be held on one day at a general election.
20.—(1) At a general election all polls shall be held on one day, and the day fixed for receiving nominations shall be the same in all constituencies, and accordingly the First Schedule to the Ballot Act, 1872, shall be modified as shown in Part I of the Second Schedule to this Act.
In the case of a by-election, the poll shall take place on such day as the returning officer may appoint, not being less than four or more than eight clear days after the day fixed for nomination, and the First Schedule to the Ballot Act, 1872, shall be modified accordingly.
(2) Official telegraphic information of the writ having been issued for a parliamentary election may be given in such cases and by such persons as may be directed by His Majesty in Council, and any steps for holding an election which may be taken on or after the receipt of the writ may be taken on or after the receipt of an official telegraphic intimation of the writ having been issued.
(3) The time appointed for the meeting of the Parliament may be any time not less than twenty clear days after the proclamation summoning the Parliment; and the Meeting of Parliament Act, 1852, is hereby repealed.
(4) Nothing in this section shall—

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

(b) apply to a university election.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The second paragraph of subsection (1) of Clause 20 deals with the interval between the nomination and the poll in the case of by-elections. If your Lordships will look at the Schedule you will find that in the case of a General Election the interval is nine days. The Bill is so drafted that the General Election case is dealt with in the Schedule, and the by-election case is dealt with in the clause; and in the clause, instead of being nine days, it is only four days. The lower limit is only four days and the higher limit eight days. It appears to me desirable, if your Lordships agree, that we should as far as possible assimilate the two, and make the interval of the by-election the same as the General Election. I need not tell your Lordships that this is of special importance in the particular circumstances in which the country is placed, because of the votes of the absent naval and military voters. If a by-election takes place, I am quite certain that, as the Bill is drawn, there would be no means of getting the votes of the absent voters in time. Therefore, it appears to be desirable to make a change. I suppose the noble Viscount might say it would always be possible for those who have to fix the poll to take the superior limit. That is true, but I think Parliament ought
1242
not to leave that to the opinion of the particular locality. I do not say the particular locality would be likely to use its power in a sinister way, but such things have been known as that the day of the poll has been fixed with a view to giving a Party advantage to one side rather than the other. Though I would rather not suggest that, yet I do think it is the duty of Parliament to take precautions lest, in a misguided moment, some authority should avail themselves of this power in order to exclude soldiers and sailors from giving their votes. Therefore, although this deals with only a small part of the subject, by-elections, and I shall have something to say later on with regard to General Elections, I hope this Amendment will be accepted. I think in the course of our long proceedings in Committee the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill was advised rather to encourage some modification of this clause upon the present stage.
Amendment moved—
Clause 20, page 15, line 11, leave out ("four") and insert ("eight") and leave out ("eight") and insert ("twelve").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: I hope the noble Marquess will not press his Amendment. He has, no doubt, taken part in some by-elections. I have taken part in a good many, and I am sure it is to the advantage of the constituencies, the voters, the candidates, and the public generally that the time occupied by the by-election should be as short as possible. In the provision for General Elections, in order that all polls should be taken on the same day, it was necessary to take the longest amount of time considered desirable for a big county division or a distant place, but here it would be extremely hard to impose on a borough the necessity of having ten days between the issue of the writ and the poll, whereas at the present time six days is the minimum and is amply sufficient. I myself took part in a by-election some years ago at Southampton, a two-Member constituency, and the poll took place six days from the issue of the writ. They were able to carry the election through with perfect success and with much less inconvenience to the trades people.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Constituencies are going to be rather larger.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: Under what I regard as unfortunate conditions temporarily introduced into this Bill, there will be some constituencies rather larger, but

1243
I assume the noble Marquess does not intend to penalise those happy constituencies left as single or two-member constituencies merely because he has seen fit to introduce constituencies of an unwieldy size into the Bill.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think the Amendment goes a little beyond, may I say, what the noble Marquess intended, because I think he said he wished to assimilate by-elections to General Elections. He wishes to provide a period of not more than twelve days. There may be twelve days, therefore, between the nomination and the polling. If he will look at the Schedule he will see that in General Elections there is to be a period of nine days as the longest limit. Therefore he wishes by-elections to have three more days than in the case of General Elections.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand there must be a little margin in a by-election. You cannot tie it to a particular day. But the great thing is to fix a minimum so as not to deprive soldiers and sailors of the vote.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I agree that you must have a certain amount of elasticity in by-elections. In the case of General Elections you cannot, because of the rule that all the elections must take place on the same day. What I am dealing with is not so much the elasticity point as that the longest period you allow in a by-election is, according to the noble Marquess, three days more than for a General Election. That does seem to me rather an unreasonable suggestion to make, that the by-election should have twelve days and the General Election nine days. I think it would be a pity to lengthen by-elections to such an extent as that. As regards the lower limit, the noble Marquess wishes to put eight days, I think, instead of four. Of course, the noble Marquess thoroughly realises that you must have a lower limit as well as an upper limit to have elasticity in the case of by-elections. If the noble Marquess wished to lengthen the period from eight to nine days and bring it up to the same period as the upper limit in the case of General Elections, I do not know that I should be disposed to oppose it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know whether the noble Viscount will take six and ten.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I cannot extend the period of General Elections, but the Government might be disposed not to oppose the noble Marquess if he wished to assimilate the longer period and make it nine days in each case.
LORD BURNHAM: I hope the noble Marquess will not press this point, because I feel very much that to increase the period, as it inevitably would, in these big constituencies is a very serious thing. We do not all take the view of the noble Viscount that only a temporary change has been made in the Bill. I am bound to say that the by-election is a point that deserves consideration in a big scheme of proportional representation. Nothing could be worse than to lengthen the period. There is the greatest difference between constituencies, and therefore it would be a mistake to raise the lower limit. In London constituencies it could be perfectly well done under any scheme adopted by this House as to redistribution. I hope the present figures will be allowed to remain.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22:
(3) During the continuance of the present war and a period of twelve months thereafter, for the purpose of allowing more time for the receipt of ballot papers from persons whose names are entered on the absent voters list, His Majesty may by Order in Council direct that the counting of votes at any elections to which the Order applies shall, instead of taking place as soon as practicable after the close of the poll, take place at such time (not exceeding eight days after the close of the poll) as may be fixed by the Order, and returning officers shall comply with any such direction.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I want, if I can, upon my next Amendment, to persuade your Lordships to extend in subsection (3) the eight days which are specially allowed to meet the exigencies of the present war to fourteen days during which the votes of the military and naval voters can be received. The reason that this is necessary is this. The time allowed

1245
is too short, and I think that if the Government will reflect upon it they will be inclined to agree with me upon that. Nothing can be done until after the nomination, because until then the authorities will not know who the candidates are. Therefore the ballot papers cannot be printed and nothing can be done until after the nomination. It will take perhaps two or three days to do the printing. Then the ballot papers have to be sent to the absent voters. I believe that it is a fact that in order to get a letter sent and returned to the most extreme part of the Line in France as much as fourteen days have been found to be required. With the time occupied in printing, that will take up a considerable period. The Government allow nine days between the nomination and the poll, and they have the eight days which the clause under discussion provides, or seventeen days in all. They will see how very fine they are running it. They have to get the printing done, and to get the letter sent and returned, and to do that within the period named is, I believe, practically impossible. I would remind your Lordships that this is only for the emergency of the war, and is not a general provision to affect the law under all circumstances. It would be a thousand pities to spoil the ship for a pennyworth of tar as it were, and for lack of a few more days to disfranchise a large number of these military and naval voters. To avoid that some prolongation of the time is necessary. I think that an apology is due to your Lordships that this was not moved in Committee. The truth is that we had so much to do in Committee that it was almost impossible to cover the whole of the ground. That is my only excuse for not having brought forward the matter in Committee. This is not a point which is created out of my own intelligence, but it has been submitted to me as essential by a very expert adviser in matters of electioneering who assures me that the time allowed for the purpose is insufficient.
Amendment moved—
Clause 22, page 17, line 4, leave out ("eight") and insert ("fourteen").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think that the noble Marquess will admit that I showed a certain pliancy towards him on the last Amendmen, and I regret, therefore, that I must display a little more rigidity in this one. It is a very serious objection that he makes.
1246
He wants to keep the decision of the country in suspense, not for eight days only, but for fourteen days. The noble Marquess has quite rightly stated that seventeen days will elapse between the nomination day and the day of counting the votes, with the extension of the eight days. The noble Marquess thinks that that is not enough time for these letters to come back from the Front. I must point out that in all the distant parts of the field of war men must vote by proxy.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was speaking of France.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I was aware of that, and I was just explaining the position. We are, therefore reduced to the position in France. The noble Marquess says that the ballot papers cannot be printed before two days have elapsed from the nomination. I understand that it will be possible, in most cases at all events, for them to be printed the day after. The noble Marquess says next that it must take at least a fortnight for the most distant ballot papers to arrive, and he says that we are running it rather fine. I think, however, that there is sufficient time. I can assure him of this, that the Post Office—he says he is advised by very competent people, and no doubt he is—have gone very thoroughly into the matter, and are satisfied that so far as they can see at present a fortnight will give ample time for the ballot papers to go out to France and to come back again and that they have no doubt that the position will be met. There are very great difficulties in extending the period for more than eight days for the counting of the votes. It was with very great difficulty that another place was induced to agree to any extension at all. It is quite clear that it is a very serious thing that the bulk of the votes should be recorded, and that the country should have to wait in suspense some eight days or 14 days according to the noble Marquess, before the decision is promulgated to the country. Under these circumstances, and as the Post Office think that there will be plenty of time for the letters to be returned, I hope that the noble Marquess will not press his Amendment further.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Has the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill sufficiently considered this point, that the papers will go to the unit to which a man

1247
belongs, and that, as he knows as well as I do, there are tens of thousands of men who are away from their unit, at school or in hospital or temporarily absent upon some duty? It does not seem to me, notwithstanding what the noble Viscount has said, that eight days is sufficient to cover these cases, and I ask him whether he is quite confident that you are not taking away with one hand what you axe giving with the other in thousands of cases if you leave it at eight days. Remember that this is only a temporary measure.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope that the Government will give way.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The EARL of CRAWFORD): May I point out that it is not only to the General Election but to the subsequent by-elections upon an exchange of office by Ministers that this will apply. Therefore by accepting these words you do not merely delay the meeting of Parliament by the difference between eight and fourteen days, but you double it as regards the effective amount of Parliamentary days.
On Question, Amendment negatived,
[The sitting was suspended at eight o'clock and resumed at fifteen minutes past nine.]
Clause 26:
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Amendment on this clause is consequential on a previous decision of your Lordships' House.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 4, omit ("the alternative or").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27:
Returning Officers.
27. The returning officer at a parliamentary election (other than a university election) shall notwithstanding anything in any other Act, be:—

(1) In the case of a parliamentary county which is coterminous with, or wholly contained in, one administrative county, the sheriff;

(2) In the case of a parliamentary borough which is coterminous with, or wholly contained in, a county of a city or town having a sheriff, the sheriff, and in the case of the City of London, the sheriffs;

(3) In the case of a parliamentary borough which is coterminous with, or wholly contained in, one municipal borough (not being a county of a city or town
1248
having a sheriff), or one metropolitan borough, or one urban district, the mayor or chairman of the council, as the case requires; and

(4) In any other case, such sheriff, mayor or chairman, as may be designated for the purpose by the Local Government Board.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The three Amendments standing in my name on the Paper—in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of Clause 27—are purely drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 20, line 10, leave out ("parliamentary county") and insert ("constituency")
Page 20, line 13, leave out ("parliamentary borough") and insert ("constituency")
Page 20, line 17, leave out ("parliamentary borough") and insert ("constituency").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 29:
Discharge of Returning Officers' Duties by an Acting Returning Officer.
29. Except as herein provided the duties of returning officer at parliamentary elections (other than a university election) shall be discharged by the registration officer as acting returning officer, and the acting returning officer shall have all the powers, duties, rights and liabilities of the returning officer under any enactments relating to parliamentary elections (including the power of appointing deputies) and those enactments (including this Act) shall have effect accordingly.
This section shall not apply to any duties which the returning officer reserves to himself and undertakes to perform in person.
Any appointment of a deputy by the acting returning officer shall be subject to the approval of the Local Government Board,
A returning officer at a parliamentary election shall not, if all his duties are discharged by the acting returning officer, be disqualified by reason of being returning officer for being a candidate at the election.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The two Amendments standing in my name upon this clause are merely drafting, to remove any doubt as to whether the returning officer has power to appoint deputies.
Amendments moved—
Page 21, lines 30 and 31, leave out ("(including the power of appointing deputies)")
line 32, at end insert ("and the acting returning officer shall have power to appoint deputies").—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 30:
Division of constituency into polling districts, and provision of polling places.
30.—(1) It shall be the duty of the council, whoso clerk is the registration officer for any

1249
constituency or by whom the registration officer is appointed, as occasion requires, to divide the constituency into polling districts, and to appoint polling places for the polling districts in such manner as to give to all electors in the constituency such reasonable facilities for voting as are practicable in the circumstances.
(2) If a local authority, or not less than thirty electors in a constituency, make a representation to the Local Government Board that the polling districts or polling places do not meet the reasonable requirements of the electors in the constituency, or any body of electors, the Local Government Board shall consider the representation, and may, if they think fit, direct the council whose duty it is to divide the constituency into polling districts, to make such alterations as the Board think necessary in the circumstances, and if the council fail to make those alterations within a month after the direction is given, may themselves make the alterations, and any alterations so made shall have effect as if they had been made by the council.
In this provision the expression "local authority" means as respects any constituency the council of any county, borough urban or rural district, or parish wholly or partly situate in the constituency, or the parish meeting of any parish so situate where there is no parish council.
(3) On the exercise of any powers given by this section the council by whom the powers are exercised shall send to the Local Government Board a report, and publish in the constituency a notice, showing the boundaries of any polling districts or the situation of any polling places constituted as a result of the exercise of the power.
(4) An election shall not be questioned by reason of any non-compliance with the provisions of this section or any informality relative to polling districts or polling places.
(5) This section shall not apply to university constituencies.
(6) Nothing in this section shall affect any polling districts or polling places constituted before the passing of this Act until occasion arises for the exercise of the powers given by this section.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE THE MARQUESS OF CREWE had on the Paper an Amendment in subsection (1), after "It shall be the duty," to insert "of the London County Council for any constituency in the administrative county of London, and elsewhere." The noble Marquess said: This was an Amendment which I brought up at the Committee stage, and the noble Viscount (Lord Peel) promised to reconsider the matter at the present stage. I, therefore, placed the Amendment on the Paper again with a view to a reconsideration of the whole subject. The point is that hitherto the London County Council has been the authority for all arrangements connected with polling districts and polling places. As the Bill stands, that power is transferred to the borough council, and for reasons which must be admitted in them
1250
selves to be strong, all the more that the duty of appointing polling places has been, since the Bill reached this House, taken away from the returning officer and given to the council whose officer has charge of registration. It therefore places that power in the hands of the borough councils of London. I think it possible that the noble Viscount may not be prepared to accept the Amendment in the form in which I have again put it down on the Paper, and which would transfer the whole power back to the London County Council. In that case I hope he will be prepared to accept a modified form of the Amendment, which would cause the County Council to be consulted beforehand in all eases where the districts have to be allotted by the new authority. It is obviously advantageous that that should be done, because the polling districts have to be set out not merely for the Parliamentary but also for the municipal elections, and it is desirable that there should he a regular process of discussion and agreement between the two authorities concerned. Therefore I shall be prepared, if the noble Viscount is willing, to move an Amendment in that sense. I have some words here which I can by leave of the House state, if the noble Viscount thinks that some such modification might be acceptable.
VISCOUNT PEEL: In reply to the noble Marquess, I should be very glad to accept a modification in the sense he suggests.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The words which I have prepared in case the noble Viscount should take that view were these, "Provided that before dividing any constituency in the administrative county of London into polling districts the authority therefor shall send a draft of any scheme for that purpose to the London County Council and shall take into consideration any representations made to them by that Council." I think perhaps I ought to add that there are some other districts in the country to which a similar provision might be applied. There are some eases in which although the need is not quite so marked as it is here—an urban district or urban districts has been formed into a county constituency, and in that case the controlling authority whose clerk is the registration officer for the constituency would be the council of the county. I think there is a case in Essex, and perhaps in some other county, and it may be that

1251
there also the urban district council would be glad to be taken into consultation before the polling stations are fixed. It is a point with which the noble Viscount will be able to deal, but so far as I am concerned I hope he will be prepared to accept the words which I have stated.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, after line 7, insert ("provided that before dividing any constituency in the administrative county of London into polling districts the authority therefor shall send a draft of any scheme for the purpose to the London County Council and shall take into consideration any representations made to them by that Council").—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am very glad to accept those words. I think they give a power which is very valuable.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD THE EARL OF LICHFIELD moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Earl said: I feel I owe an explanation to your Lordships and my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill for not having brought this Amendment forward in Committee. The action I am taking is on behalf of the County Councils Association, which only met the day after this clause was inserted in your Lordships' House by Viscount Peel. I took an early opportunity of telling my noble friend of the course which I wish to pursue, so that he should be able to see what attitude he would adopt towards it. The subsection I move to omit gives for the first time the Local Government Board an over-riding authority over the county councils in their discretion of appointing polling districts and polling places. The county councils have held this power under the Local Government Act of 1888. It was conferred on the Justices in Quarter Sessions by the Representation of the People Act, 1867, and in 1888 the duties were transferred to the county councils. Up to now they have carried through their duties with impartiality, I believe, and, so far as I know, absolutely without any complaint. If your Lordships will turn to the subsection you will see that it is proposed that any body of thirty electors or the parish council or district council may appeal to the Local Government Board without reference to the county council in the first instance, and the Local Government Board shall consider the representations and
"may if they think fit direct the council whose duty it is to divide the constituency into polling
1252
districts to make such alterations as the Board think necessary in the circumstances."
and then—
"if the council fail to make those alterations within a month after the direction is given, may themselves make the alterations, and any alterations so made shall have effect as if they had been made by the council,"
I notice that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill merely introduced this new clause and did not say much about it in his opening remarks in Committee. You have in this case, without previous reference to the county council, the right of thirty electors or the parish council or so on to make a representation to the Local Government Board, who, if they think fit, shall direct the council. The county councils strongly object to this over-riding of the powers they have hitherto exercised. They are, of course, local authorities elected by the people. They know the local circumstances, and they make impartially such arrangement as they think may be best for the district over which they exercise control. Now it is proposed to take that entirely out of their hands without any reference to them whatever, and to allow the Local Government Board to direct the alterations if they see fit.
I put it to your Lordships, Do you consider that the Local Government Board is a better final authority to deal with this matter than the county council? Surely the Local Government Board, with its two representatives of the Government, will be tinged with the political feelings of the Government of the day, and will be much more likely to find difficulty in giving an impartial decision than are the county councils. Again, the Local Government Board will not be nearly so well acquainted with local circumstances. The county councils, in fixing polling places, will look at the requirements of the district, the accommodation that can be provided at these places, railway facilities, etc., and then make their orders. Now it is proposed to override them and to allow the Local Government Board to tell them they are to alter their orders. Another point in this subsection is this. It says, "if the council fail to make those alterations within a month after the direction is given"—and I should like to point out that there will be very great difficulty in carrying out any order within one month. As a rule county councils meet quarterly, and the members of county

1253
councils make their arrangements for attending. It has been found, in practice that if a county council tries to call an emergency meeting at short notice it is difficult to get a proper attendance, and therefore I submit that the time of one month is quite inadequate to enable a county council properly to carry out an order they might receive. Again, it might seem that the least that could be expected would be that the Local Government Board would consult a county council before they made any final order, but there is nothing whatever in the subsection about consulting the county council before this final order is made. The whole matter is taken away from county councils and vested in the Local Government Board, who may, on the representation of thirty electors, alter all the arrangements which the county councils have made. I am instructed by the County Councils Association to offer strong objections to the subsection as inserted, and I hope your Lordships will support me, and them, by deciding that it would be better to leave this subsection out of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 8, leave out subsection (2).—(The Earl of Lichfield.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: I feel sure your Lordships appreciate the reason which was given by the noble Earl for moving this Amendment at this stage of the Bill, instead of moving it when the Bill was in Committee. I am equally certain that your Lordships with myself, will appreciate the reasonable and effective arguments by which the noble Earl has supported his Amendment, but, none the less. I hope your Lordships will not accept it.
Let us see what this subsection proposes to effect, and why it is that the noble Earl on behalf of the County Councils Association, desires to omit it. I think any one who has had experience in connection with elections knows quite well that there are frequently cases of great hardships in scattered districts owing to the arrangements of polling districts, or polling places, in such manner as to render it extremely inconvenient for many of the voters to record their votes. That I believe to be a condition of things which every one would be anxious as far as possible to remove. It is obviously undesirable that elections should be determined by the facilities which one candidate or the other may have for
1254
bringing voters to the poll. It would be far better in my view that every elector were bound to secure for himself the means of conveyance to the poll, and that the polling places should be so arranged that it should not be beyond the powers of any able-bodied man to walk there himself. The noble Earl has pointed out that in the past the local authorities have been responsible for the duty referred to in this subsection. I agree; but it is also perfectly true, and I think everyone must know it, that their action has caused in many cases great complaint. This subsection is framed for the purpose of enabling a group of people—30 in number—to represent their grievance to what is regarded as an independent authority for the purpose of seeing whether the polling districts and the polling places as fixed by the local authority cannot be more conveniently arranged to suit the general convenience of all the inhabitants in the district.
The noble Earl suggests it is possible that the Local Government Board at any particular moment may be under the political control of either one Party or the other. He was perfectly fair about it and did not suggest it would be any particular Party, but either Party. I hardly think that would have great weight in their determining what course of action they ought to follow; but if it be true that political considerations may affect their judgment, how much more strongly would they affect the judgment of a local authority, which we know perfectly well under the present system is, as I regard most unfortunately, elected time after time on a strictly Party programme. We know quite well that in many cases the different political organisations are kept active, the registers are kept up, the voters are kept in touch with the different political agents, by means of fighting these very local elections; and whatever political influences may affect the judgment of the Local Government Board, I cannot help thinking it would be far more likely, if it were brought into play at all, to affect more strongly the action of the local body.
The noble Earl's Amendment is to omit the subsection altogether. That is to say, to leave these polling districts and polling places, when once determined, determined for ever so that the Local Government Board or any other authority can have no influence whatever in saying

1255
whether the determination is right or wrong. There are further Amendments standing in the name of Lord Galway which modify this provision to a certain extent, but these are not the Amendments moved by the noble. Earl, who is anxious that the whole subsection should be omitted. I think, even with the best judgment, it may well be that in certain cases the local authority may not give full effect to the reasonable convenience and desires of groups of people within their area; and, after all, all that this subsection does is to enable cases of that kind first to be brought to the attention of the Local Government Board, and then, if the Local Government Board upon examination thinks the complaint just, to enable the Board to remedy it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I entirely understand the reasons which prevented the noble Earl opposite from moving this Amendment at an earlier stage, and I need hardly say that any representation brought forward by so powerful and influential a body as the County Councils Association will have very earnest consideration from His Majesty's Government. I am quite ready to say also, because I think it is nothing less than the truth, that in discharging these duties county councils have had very few complaints on the whole as to their action. But the noble Earl fully recognises that the number of electors is going to be largely increased, and that the question of bringing the polling stations, and so on, within easy reach is a matter which interests a very great number of persons. The question of some appeal to the Local Government Board has been very strongly pressed, and I should be rather sorry to so far accede to the desire of the noble Earl as to remove any opportunity of appeal from these smaller bodies to the Local Government Board; but I do feel, from the observations that have fallen from the noble Earl, that it is rather, so to say, a little derogatory to the position of the county councils that these appeals should be entirely over their heads to the Local Government Board. I was going to make this suggestion to him. I do not know whether it would meet his views to introduce in line 13 the word "may" "the local Government Board shall consider the Report and may after consultation with the Council." That is to say, the Local Government Board would not come to its decision merely on the representations of the smaller bodies.
1256
I do not suppose that it would in any case, but this would lay upon it a statutory duty to consult the council concerned before it arrives at its decision. That, I think, would fully preserve the right of appeal, and at the same time would maintain the position and dignity of the county councils. If the noble Earl was ready to withdraw his Amendment, I should be very glad to insert words of that kind.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: If this suggestion were accepted, and if this clause is to be operative at all, surely the Local Government Board is to take action after consulting the county council. If the county council objected to the action which the Local Government Board proposed to take, it would be more derogatory to their position and character than even if the other method had been adopted.
LORD BURNHAM: These cases of interference with local governing bodies are very numerous, and the supervision of the Local Government Board is exercised in many directions. At the same time it ought not, I think, to be called upon to take this course except on the representation of a substantial body of electors. I cannot think that thirty electors as compared with the numbers of the new constituencies are a body of men worth taking into account. What I fear is that everywhere some small and factious collection of men will make representations of this kind, and that the Local Government Board would be put to the expense of a local inquiry, with all the paraphernalia of a court, without any reasonable cause. The Local Government Board can only satisfy itself as to the genuineness of a complaint by such inquiry. I suggest that thirty is too small a number, and that there ought to be a substantial number of electors.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: It seems to me, since the noble Viscount opposite is not prepared to accept this Amendment, that the first and third of the Amendments which are on the Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Galway would meet the case pretty fairly; and it is to be noted that the noble Lord and my noble friend behind me do not raise the point to which my noble friend Lord Burnham alluded. So far as the polling places are concerned, I think that it is desirable that a

1257
comparatively small number of electors should be able to make a protest.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: On this Amendment I am afraid I take a more extreme view than my noble friend Lord Burnham. I do not know from what quarter this subsection arose, or from whom those strong expressions of opinion have come to which the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill referred, but this provision is nakedly aimed at the county councils, not at the borough councils, and that is a very important distinction, as I will show when I consider the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Buckmaster, he said that sometimes there were cases of great hardship, owing to the arrangement of polling districts. I am not here to prove a negative. There may be such cases, but I absolutely deny that they are common, and I quote in evidence of my statement what the noble Viscount in charge of this Bill said, that the action of county councils has met with very few complaints. Now let us pursue the argument of Lord Buckmaster, it is obviously undesirable, he said, that the elections should be determined by the arrangement of the polling districts. Has my noble friend ever known an election determined by the arrangement of the polling districts? Has it ever been alleged that an election has been lost or won by the partisan action—
LORD BUCKMASTER: I cannot recall having used those words, and I certainly did not mean to say that they were determined in that way.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: What my noble friend said was that an election should not be determined by the arrangement of the polling districts. He did not say they had been determined. I ask him whether he ever knew a case where an election had been so determined, and I am sure he cannot give me one. There is no noble Lord in this House who is better acquainted with the Party machine than the noble Viscount, Lord Harcourt. We have all watched with envious malignity his successful efforts against us. I also have been a little, in the Party machine, though I cannot compare my knowledge with his. I never heard of a really serious suggestion that the county councils have been guilty of a breach of trust in this
1258
matter of the arrangement of the polling districts, and that is what the insinuation amounts to.
Again, the noble Lord, Lord Buckmaster, said that the action of the local authorities had in many cases caused great complaints. I deny the many cases. I am not prepared to say that there have not been cases—I cannot prove that, but I say there has been no general complaint. Again I cite the testimony of (he noble Viscount in charge of the Bill.
Then the noble and learned Lord used these arguments in favour of the provision to give an appeal to the Local Government Board, and he said how much more strongly would political considerations affect local authorities than the Local Government Board. He said that it might conceivably be possible that some Minister, either Liberal or Conservative, might influence the Local Government Board by political considerations. He did not, however, think that there was very much in this consideration but thought he could not altogether put it aside, and if so how much more likely, he asked, would the same partisanship be shown by the county councils? I do not admit that. He said that the local authorities were very largely elected on Party considerations. That is not true of the county councils generally. It is true of the County Council of the West Biding, which is the one my noble and learned friend, perhaps, knows best, and it may be true of one or two others; but it is absolutely untrue of the main body of the county councils in England. I speak with a knowledge which is not singular; many other noble Lords in this House share it—my noble friend Lord Harris shares it, as also does my noble friend Lord Lichfield.
I say that it is extraordinary the extent to which politics are eliminated from the county work of the county councils of England. The county council on which I sit is mainly a Conservative council; but we have, of course, a large number of Liberals, and some Socialists, on that council. There is a feeling of mutual confidence, and a complete absence of partisanship, that is almost ideal. I say without the slightest hesitation that this question of the fixing of polling districts has never yet been considered in my county from the point of view of the Party to which I belong, nor has it ever been alleged by any Liberal or by any Socialist that it has

1259
been so considered. Therefore, if there is an element of human weakness in this matter it is as likely to show itself in the President of the Local Government Board as in the county councils.
But my main objection to this subsection is this. It is another instance of that deliberate tendency now going on of increasing the power of the Offices in Westminster at the expense of local government. A county council is far more fitted to decide where the polling districts in that county shall be than any President of the Local Government Board who ever sat in Whitehall; and I hope that my noble friend who moved this Amendment will not withdraw it. The Government accepted this subsection (I presume from what my friend said) in the House of Commons, because there was pressure, and not much was said on the other side; and they had very strong feelings themselves on the subject. But I resist it because it is an instance of the increasing tendency to put our local government into leading strings from Whitehall. I resent that more than I can say. The Local Government Board in Whitehall, on the appeal of thirty electors out of 15,000 or more in one constituency, may move a very stalwart Conservative or Liberal President of the Local Government Board at Whitehall to take action, either after consultation with them (as my noble friend suggests), or without consultation with them, to upset what is the considered opinion of the county council. This is not our system of local government. This is bureaucracy; and I sincerely trust that my noble friend will insist upon his Amendment.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I wish to support the principle of this Amendment, as I think that we ought at least to have as much as is given by the Amendment of Lord Galway, which goes a good deal further than the Government proposed. But I also wish to support what the noble Lord on my right said—namely, that thirty electors are far too small a unit to set in motion this overruling power. In fact it is much less than thirty, because if you read this clause the net is cast as wide as possible, and every wretched little scrap of a local authority is included, the council of a parish of less than a hundred inhabitants or even of seventy and eighty inhabitants, and not always
1260
within a constituency—half in and half out of the constituency. Of course, we know that there is a certain conflict in a county. The county lays out its polling districts with a view to some moderate economy, but also with a view to the convenience of the great mass of the electors as a whole. But you may have some little group on the edge of a constituency, or, as we find in those parts of Gloucestershire and Worcestershire which are mixed up with other counties, you may have a parish with only 200 inhabitants asking to have a polling district of their own. The county council will probably set up polling districts of 400 to 500, and I think the county council should have the right to say "You are too small a nucleus of electors to be entitled to claim a polling booth all to yourselves." I think if the Government are not prepared to give the larger concession, we may have to consider on the Third Reading an Amendment to cut out some of these absurdly small units. I hope, however, that somebody on behalf of the Government' will go a great deal further than the noble Viscount has done to meet this excess of bureaucratic interference.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: The noble Lord who has just spoken has talked as if we were only dealing with polling districts. We are dealing with polling places, which is a matter that affects individuals. He also spoke of the sub-clause as if an appeal was only to be made by thirty electors, or by the parich council, but if the sub-clause were omitted the borough, urban, and rural district councils would all be prohibited from making their representation. After all, the Government are removing from the Bill the provision by which a man was entitled, if within a district in which there were 200 voters, to have a polling place within at least three miles of him. That is being removed, and you are giving him very little protection. He may not be protected by the county council at all, and I think he should have an appeal to the Local Government Board.
LORD PARMOOR: I hope the Amendment will be pressed to a Division. The real question is which is the best body to decide a matter of this sort—the local body which is acquainted with local conditions, namely, the county council, or the Central Department at Whitehall.

1261
I have no hesitation in saying that the local body ought to have the decision and not the central body at Whitehall. I wish to say one word with reference to what was said about county councils. I served on a county council for nearly twenty-five years, and I entirely dissent from the suggestion which was made that in matters of this kind the county council acts on any other than administrative principles. Why I desire that the local authority should not be overridden is in order that that method of action which I now believe all county councils follow in matters of this kind should not be displaced. We ought to leave them the responsibility of that, and they are the best body to deal with that responsibility. As regards the Bill as it stands, six people at a parish meeting might demand a local inquiry by the Local Government Board. Surely that is extravagant. I must say, on the point of principle, that I want the county council to be left alone. It is one of the evil tendencies of modern legislation to override the responsibility of our local authorities, and I think that responsibility ought to be maintained, especially as regard administrative matters of this sort. Therefore I hope the noble Earl will not accept any compromise but will press his Amendment to a Division.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I shall say one word on this. There has been some difference of opinion, I think. Some noble Lords wish to omit the whole of the subsection and place the duty on the county council, while others are ready to accept some modification. I was going to suggest that, if it met the noble Earl, that I would accept the words in the name of Lord Gal way "after application to, and refusal by, the county council." That would mean that, in the first case, the appeal should go to the county council, and only after it had been thoroughly looked into and the county council had not satisfied the complainants, should the matter go to the Local Government Board; or, it might be possible to omit the number of electors, which has been objected to. I do not think there is much good in increasing the number to fifty. I would suggest omitting the number and leaving it to the local authorities and not to the electors to make a complaint. I do not know whether that would meet the views of noble Lords.
THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: There might be a parish council with only five or six members in attendance on the day.
VISCOUNT PEEL: But they are a representative body.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I am afraid the suggestion just made by the noble Viscount opposite is hardly likely to meet the wishes of noble Lords amongst whom I sit at this moment, though I quite recognise the desire of the noble Viscount to meet us so far as he can. Personally, I must say my sympathy is entirely with the noble Earl sitting beside me when he referred to the extreme paucity of members of your Lordships' House who are present at this moment. I share with him the opinion that when we have to decide such an important question as this, it is very desirable that we should have a larger attendance than we have. But, quite apart from that, I entirely agree with him when he says that the action of the county councils, generally speaking, has been almost universally approved, and I am bound to say, when we consider also the entire freedom from Party politics which governs their proceedings as a general rule, it is rather unfortunate that in a case of this sort we should be asked to go back again to the Local Government Board in London. I do not wish to say any word of disparagement of a very estimable Department, of which I was at one time chief myself, but that does not in the least make me differ in my views from the noble Earl.
What are the objections to the proposal? The noble Viscount, Lord Harcourt, began just now by saying that if the Government took action under the pressure which is being put upon them it would, I understood him to say, be derogatory. Why? I have heard no reason from the noble Viscount, and, when that pressure is accompanied by admirable arguments such as it has been, I see nothing derogatory in it myself. It was said by Lord Burnham that thirty electors were too small a body to make such a demand, but the objection of the noble Lord was entirely answered, I thought, by the noble Viscount, Lord Harcourt, himself.
I must express my own opinion upon one point, and it grows upon me more and more every day when I think of it.

1263
We are very much over-governed by bureaucracy at the present moment, and I do not wish to see it go any further than it has gone. I hope, ere long, it may be very greatly reduced. For instance, there are sixteen different Ministries—I think I am correct in the number—which have been created since the present Government came into power, within barely twelve months. And what for? Half of them overlap each other, and half of them are quarrelling with each other, and making such a mess of public business at such an inestimable cost as no one ever heard or dreamt of before. And we are asked to take another step in the same direction to-night! Why are we to do so, and why on earth cannot we be satisfied? If there is a difficulty in this question why cannot we be satisfied with the county councils, of whom every noble Lord who has spoken to-night has agreed as to how admirably their work has been done? I could not resist saying these few words, because I feel strongly about it, and I most earnestly hope that the noble Earl will press his Amendment to a division. If that is not sufficient, why then we shall be perfectly right to consider the suggestions that have been made by the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill and deal with them as may be desirable afterwards.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I hope the noble Earl will not divide. I really think the noble Viscount has somewhat exaggerated the crimes of the Government. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who said that this was an illustration of the deliberate tendency to centralise power in Whitehall to the detriment of local authorities.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I did not mean that it was the deliberate tendency of the Government, but that it was the tendency of the day.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: The noble Viscount who has just sat down says it is an illustration of the megalomania of this Government. This was not proposed at the instance of the Government at all. It was not in the original Bill.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: It was moved and supported by the Government.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It was
1264
pressed upon the Government by unofficial members of the House of Commons. Parliament asked for it, and not Ministers.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Hear, hear. Quite true.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I shall be very much surprised if the Local Government Board desires to take these powers for any satisfaction that it may obtain from them by intervening between a small local council and a county council as to whether this or that school is to be a polling station. Really, to do the Government justice, do not charge members of the Government with such palpable absurdities as that.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I did not
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: These are quite small things, tiresome things too, that no Government Office desires to take control of. I do not know whether your Lordships desire to cut out the whole of subsection (2). If your Lordships desire it, by all means let it come out; but I would point out that my noble friend has offered, and I think it is material, that the county councils shall be brought in for purposes of application, and only if they refuse should there lie an appeal. I cannot help thinking that this is a very reasonable attitude to take up. However, if your Lordships think it derogatory to county councils that anybody should appeal against their decision, I again should be surprised. County councils do not stand on their dignity; they are an extremely able, shrewd, practical, and businesslike set of men. They do not mind receiving representations from subordinate bodies. On the contrary, my experience is that they are always ready and willing to consider such representations. Again, I do not believe for a moment that the average county council objects to its decisions being revised by the Local Government Board. Perhaps the associations do, perhaps the pundits do, but the average county council and the average member of the county council has no false pride in these matters and is only anxious to do the best by the county. I am entirely in your hands. It is suggested that the number of electors should be excluded altogether so that representation should come only from a local elected body. It is further suggested that no appeal should lie unless the case is not met by the county council. If that is

1265
distasteful to the House the Government do not certainly mean to divide, as this was put in at the instigation of private unofficial members of the House of Commons.
LORD PARMOOR: It was put in in this House.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It was put in by my noble friend here. Perhaps Lord Parmoor forgets that it was raised in the other House.
LORD PARMOOR: I thought you said it was inserted in the other House. It was put in in this House.
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I move the adjournment of the debate. I do not think anybody can accuse us of having been loth to work to-night. We have sat two hours and a half later than the House of Commons, and it really is not fair to go on with this Report stage when there are large numbers of our friends with Amendments, or who wish to speak at this stage, absent from the House. I really do not think the proposal requires arguing.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn.—(The Earl of Selborne).
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: It is true that Lord Galway, who has an Amendment on the Paper, is absent, but the Government, I think, are prepared to accept his Amendment, and perhaps there would be no difficulty in moving it from other Benches. But if we turn over the Paper and see the business we might usefully conduct, we shall find that all those who are moving the Amendments for some distance down are already in the House.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I said it was raised in the other House, and under strong pressure there an undertaking was given that it would be put in at a subsequent stage if possible.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I propose to put the Question in the form "That the word 'If'—the first word of the subsection which the noble Earl has moved to delete—stand part of the Bill."
On Question, whether the word "If" shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 20.

CONTENTS.

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor)

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Hylton, L.

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

Harcourt, V. [Teller.]

Islington, L.

Peel, V.

Ranksborough, L.

Southwark, L.

Crewe, M.

Buckmaster, L. [Teller.]

Stanmore, L.

Lytton, E.

Colebrooke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Camperdown, E.

Atkinson, L.

Hatberton, L.

Grey, E. [Teller.]

Balfour, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Lichfield, E. [Teller.]

Beresford of Metemmeh, L.

Mouteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Lucan, E.

Burnham, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Sandwich, E.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Parmoor, L.

Selborne, E.

Faringdon, L.

Harris, L.

Stanley of Alderley, (L. Sheffield.

Chaplin, V.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Not all those who want to debate them.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: Earl Grey has four Amendments, and he is here. Lord Selborne, with two Amendments, is here also. I have a small one which will be accepted. Then there are Amendments by Viscount Chaplin, Lord Muir Mackenzie, several by Viscount Peel, others by Earl Grey and Lord Balfour It cannot be said, therefore, that we are deprived of the presence of noble Lords who have put down Amendments.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not think it really depends on who is here and who is not, but in the last Division there were 20 on one side and 14 on the other—that is, only 4 more than would have involved, under the Standing Orders, the adjournment of the debate to another day. If there are one or two points coming on of importance we do not know whether there will be a Division challenged or not; but if a Division is challenged, any moral force which the result of the Division

1267
has for subsequent consideration in another place is entirely lost, and I really do not think it is fair to the House, as a House, to go on in the circumstances.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I very much regret that both Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Lord Selborne should have said it was unfair. I assure the House that the last thing I should wish to do would be what any noble Lord had a right to call unfair.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If I gave that impression, I withdraw it. I did not mean that.
THE EARL OP CRAWFORD: It was the words, and not the impression. The noble Earl started by saying that it was unfair, and Lord Balfour of Burleigh repeated it.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I said it was not fair to the House.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think we might occupy a little more time in discussing this Bill. What Lord Harcourt said is true. So far as noble Lords who have Amendments to move are concerned, they are all here. As regards pages 10 to 15, all noble Lords are present in whose names the Amendments stand. On page 16 there are two Amendments standing in the names of noble Lords who are absent. On page 17 there is one. So far as pages 18 and 19 are concerned all the noble Lords are in the House; also page 20; and on page 21 there are Amendments standing in the names of noble Lords who are absent, but one Amendment is to leave out the word "Camlachie" and insert "Denistoun." With a very early Easter and extreme financial pressure in the House of Commons and with three or four more important Bills before your Lordships, I cannot help thinking that if possible we ought to try and make a little more progress to-night.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I confess that I am somewhat moved by the appeal of the noble Earl (Lord Crawford). On one or two of the evenings on which we have been discussing this Bill—except on the two occasions when proportional representation and woman suffrage, which excited the sentiments of a great number of your Lordships, were on—I am not certain that the number attending during the later hours of the evening was very much greater than it is at present. In these circumstances I confess that I am rather disposed to agree
1268
with the noble Earl. So far as the contents of what we have to consider are concerned, it is always possible to postpone any clause of which it is not desired for one reason or another to engage in the consideration at the moment; and if any point arises on which some noble Lords think that a full or fair consideration cannot be given, I am sure that His Majesty's Government would agree that the clause ought to be postponed. But there is a great deal of almost urgent business to be carried on, and I should have thought that at this fairly early hour we should be well occupied in conducting it.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: I am sorry to differ from the noble Marquess on this question. As to who is here or who is not here, it is a question of the absence of our respective supporters: Now, among the Amendments on the Paper, no one appears to have seen one that is standing in my name. With all respect, it is an Amendment of very great importance, because it is an attempt on my part to revive an ancient power belonging to this House of which it was deprived by action in the House of Commons under wholly exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. I had the Amendment on the Paper in Committee, and I greatly regret that I was prevented from moving it then by a somewhat serious accident which occurred to me just as I was starting to come down to the House. I have every reason to believe that, if I had had an opportunity of stating my case, the decision of this House would have been different from what it was. The Amendment was only just defeated, and it would not be in order for me to tell the reason why I think it would be carried on this occasion. I have every desire to put that case before the House when there are the usual number of noble Lords present. We now have a singularly small House, and my recollection is that during these debates in Committee we have had a larger attendance than I ever recollect. In the circumstances I should be very sorry to be called upon to move my Amendment to-night, and I think the Government would do well to make this concession. With regard to the Third Reading being taken on the same day, that is a matter which of course we shall have to consider later.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: The noble Viscount's Amendment is on Clause 39. Could we not go on until we reach that Clause?
LORD HARRIS: I propose as a comp-promise that we continue the debate, but that if a Division is challenged we should then adjourn.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I am entirely in the hands of the House. If we could go on, there are nine clauses intervening between the point of the present discussion and Lord Chaplin's Amendment. I wish to press upon your Lordships that to-morrow we have to deal with an extremely technical Bill, and Lord Sandhurst wishes to move a number of highly technical and difficult Amendments. We also may have the Man-Power Bill before us.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I would like to point out that in my opinion the business before the House is not unimportant. There is a particularly important Amendment after Clause 39 standing in the name of Lord Muir Mackenzie.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It is out of order.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: That is a matter of opinion, on which the House has to decide. With regard to the Third Reading, we will do everything we can to finish the Report stage to-morrow, but there may be Amendments put down for Third Reading, and I do not wish the noble Earl to be under any misapprehension. I can give no pledge for my Party that we will agree to the Third Reading being taken to-morrow.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I do not ask for any pledge, but merely that we should occupy a little time to-night, instead of talking about it.
LORD HATHERTON: May I suggest to your Lordships that we should continue our business?
On Question, Motion for adjournment negatived.
Clause 31:
Place of election.
31. The place of election shall be fixed for each constituency (other than a university constituency) by the returning officer, and shall be—

(a) if the constituency is a parliamentary borough or a division of a parliamentary borough, some place within the borough;

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

EARL GREY: The Amendments standing in my name are all consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 23, lines 4 and 5, leave out ("is a parliamentary borough or a division of a parliamentary") and insert ("is, or the major part of the constituency is contained in, a muncipal").
Page 23, line 7, leave out from ("(b)") to ("some") in line 8, and insert ("in any other case")
Page 23, line 9, leave out ("county") and insert ("constituency"), and leave out ("parliamentary") and insert ("municipal")
Page 23, line 10, leave out ("county") and insert ("constituency").—(Earl Grey.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 36:
Redistribution of seats.
36.—(1) Each of the areas mentioned in the first column of the First Part of the Ninth Schedule to this Act shall be a parliamentary borough returning the number of members specified opposite thereto in the said Schedule, and where so provided in the Schedule shall be divided into the divisions specified therein, and each such division shall return one member.
(2) Each of the areas mentioned in the first column of the Second Part of the Ninth Schedule to this Act shall be a parliamentary county returning the number of members specified opposite thereto in the said Schedule, and where so provided in the Schedule shall be divided into the divisions specified therein, and each such division shall return one member.
(3) Each of the universities and combinations of universities mentioned in the Third Part of the Ninth Schedule to this Act shall be a constituency returning the number of members specified opposite thereto in the said Schedule.
(4) The distribution of seats in Great Britain under this Part of this Act shall take the place of the distribution of seats existing at the time of the passing of this Act; and all writs for parliamentary elections and other documents consequent upon the writs or relating to parliamentary elections or the registration of electors shall be framed and expressed in such manner and form as may be necessary for carrying into effect the provisions of this Act.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved two Amendments. The noble Earl said: These Amendments are also consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 25, line 26, leave out from beginning of the line to ("returning") in line 27, and insert ("of the Ninth Schedule to this Act shall be a separate constituency")
Page 25, line 31, leave out subsections (2) and (3).—(The Earl of Selborne)
On Question, Amendments agreed to
Clause 38:
Alteration of polling districts where necessary.
38. The council having power to divide a constituency into polling districts shall, not later than one month after the passing of this Act, take into consideration the division of the constituency into polling districts, and make any re-arrangements of those districts which it appears necessary to make as a consequence of alterations effected by this Act.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT VISCOUNT HARCOURT moved after, "districts," where that word last occurs to insert "and of polling places." The noble Viscount said: I think the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, will probably agree that it is necessary to reinsert these words, which were omitted accidently after his acceptance of an Amendment of mine.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 31, after ("districts") insert ("and of polling places").—(Viscount Harcourt.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I shall be glad to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, we have come now to the Amendment which the noble Viscount, Lord Harcourt, suggested was a reasonable point at which to stop this debate. I am speaking now of the Amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin. It is an Amendment which deals with the question as to whether the two Houses of Parliament are to have an equal right to object, by Resolution, to Rules or Regulations laid before the Houses of Parliament. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, moved this Amendment before, when the noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin, was not able to be present. It is a very important matter, and affects the privileges of this House. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave a ruling, at the last debate, of very far-reaching consequences, and we desire, with the utmost respect, to discuss that ruling and all the questions which arise from it. I maintain that it is really, I do not use the word unfair, but that it is quite impossible to carry on this debate, and as the noble Marquess Lord Salisbury has just arrived, I hope he will agree with me that the, time has come to adjourn. We already have had one Motion for the adjournment, which has been withdrawn, and I beg to make the Motion again that this debate be adjourned.
Moved, that the debate be adjourned.—
LORD BUCKMASTER:If this matter requires a larger House for its consideration, then I should be prepared to move that it be considered at a later stage; but there is no reason why the House should adjourn.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, the House settled, five minutes ago, not to adjourn.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The noble Viscount, Lord Harcourt, suggested that we should adjourn at this point.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I do not suggest it. I suggest that we should continue our business, and I implore the House to go on with the business, Since our conversation about an adjournment, which took up nearly half an hour, the noble Lords Lord Lamington, Lord Somerleyton, and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, have come into the House. Every noble Lord who has an Amendment on the Order Paper is in the House at the present moment. Our House is small, but some of your Lordships will remember that during last week our numbers were not materially bigger than they are now. I cannot help thinking that, with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and the noble Viscount, Lord Chaplin, in the House, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor present to answer these highly technical legal questions, we might make some progress.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I ask your Lordships not to legislate in the absence of Peers who are interested in the Bill.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The House of Commons adjourned three hours ago.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Yes, after it had finished its business.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Is there any Motion before the House?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Lord Selborne has moved that the House do now adjourn.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I cannot do much more than repeat what I have already said. I have been a member of this House very much longer than most

1273
noble Lords here, and the greater part of the business I have seen conducted has been gone through with not a larger House than this. That I say quite categorically.
Clause 39:
Regulations to be laid before Parliament.
39.—(1) All rules, regulations, or provisions made by Order in Council under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith; and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such rule, regulation, or provision is laid before it, praying that the rule, regulation, or provision may be annulled. His Majesty in Council may annul the rule, regulation, or provision and it shall thenceforth by void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done thereunder.
(2) Any Order in Council under this Act may be revoked or varied as occasion requires by any subsequent Order in Council.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN VISCOUNT CHAPLIN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out from "if" ("and if an address is presented to His Majesty"] to the end of the subsection, and to insert "neither House of Parliament within the next subsequent ten days on which that House has sat next after any such rule, regulation, or provision is laid before it, passes a resolution adverse thereto, it shall have effect as if it were enacted in this Act, and the validity of any proceedings which may in the meantime have been taken under any such rule, regulation, or provision shall not be prejudiced by the subsequent passing of a resolution adverse thereto."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I may say at once that I am quite willing
On Question, whether the Debate shall be now adjourned?
Their Lordships divided: Contents. 14; Not-Contents, 21.

CONTENTS.

Salisbury, M.

Chaplin, V.

Burnham, L.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Camperdown, E.

Atkinson, L.

Faringdon, L.

Grey, E,[Teller.]

Balfour, L.

Monteagle. L. (M. Sligo.)

Sandwich, E.

Beresford of Metemmeh, L.

Parmoor, L.

Selborne, E. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Harcourt, V.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

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

Peel, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Queenborough, L.

Buckmaster, L.

Ranksborough, L.

Crewe, M.

Colebrooke, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Lucan, E.

Denman, L.

Southwark, L.

Lytton, E.

Harris, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.

Hatherton, L.

Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Stanmore. L. [Teller]

Islington, L.

Suffield, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

to accept twenty-one days instead of the ten in my Amendment. The Amendment that I am now moving is a provision that was contained year ago in the Agricultural Rates Act. At that time we were engaged in a period of great stress and struggle against the most violent and prolonged opposition that I ever remember in fifty years of political life, and I accepted ten days in order to help to get the Bill carried against this obstruction, in which I was ultimately successful. At that time there was no guillotine, and the closure was very different from what it was in after years. But such was the obstruction at that time, that, although it was only a Bill of seven clauses. I think we were occupied four or five nights, for all-night, sittings, the opposition being led by the present Primes Minister, who was then sitting below the gangway, and supported by the Leader of the Opposition, the father of my noble friend Lord Harcourt. In those circumstances it was that I made that concession, and I am perfectly prepared to accept the longer period which is in the Bill now. I greatly regret that owing to my enforced absence when this question was raised in Committee I was unable to make the statement which I propose to make tonight.
We all agree that the practice of late years of leaving very important questions which have not been sanctioned by Parliament to be dealt with by Regulations, has assumed dimensions in these days which

1275
are exceedingly undesirable. No one, I am sure, can contradict that. It is a comparatively recent growth. It began during the stages of the Agricultural Rates Bill. It was at that date a practically new departure from the system of Regulations which had been hitherto pursued, and since then it has become common, and it became common after the passing of the Budget of 1909 in which, for the first time, with three exceptions only of which I am aware, it was ever put in force. Those three cases were as follows. One was the case of an Army Bill, an emergency Bill, to be used for taking land by compulsion in case of war. That was a very natural and necessary proposal. The second was the case of the Old Age Pensions Act in 1908; and the third, the Local Government Act of 1898, making provisions applicable to Ireland, of which I did not know until I was told by my noble and learned friend Lord Atkinson.
My attention was first called to these Rules upon a clause during the passage of the Finance Act of 1909, and it arose in this way. Mr. Alfred Lyttleton, who was then Home Secretary, was in charge; of the House of Commons on that day. It was pointed out that the Bill contained no provision for laying Commissioners' Rules on the Tables of the Houses of Parliament. When the Finance Bill of 1909 was introduced by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, although there were many things to be done by Regulations, which were afterwards done, no provision whatever was made with regard to their being laid on the Table. Mr. Lyttleton moved an Amendment very much in the sense of the Amendment which I am moving now. The Chancellor of the Exchequer recognised the principle, but objected to the delay that would be caused by the Amendment in that form. As an alternative Amendment he proposed that the Rules should be laid before both Houses, and, if an Address were presented by both Houses within the next thirty days, His Majesty might annul them without prejudice to anything done therein. Hitherto, as I say, the general rule in the majority of eases, to the best of my knowledge and belief, was that this objecton could be raised by either House, and if an Address to the Crown were carried it was effective and the Regulation was stopped.
The House will, of course, perceive that the proposal made by the then Chancellor
1276
of the Exchequer was nothing but a proposal to put it in the hands and the power of the Cabinet itself to pass any Regulations they liked, or to stop, or not to move, anything which interfered with the powers of the Cabinet. That was an extraordinary departure, because its effect was that any number of things could be done by the Cabinet under the Regulations, having the force of law, which had never received the sanction of Parliament. On these grounds we determined to oppose it. The next stage was this. I rose to support Mr. Lyttleton. The Chancellor of the Exchequer took great exception to this, and it was urged in the House of Commons that I had forgotten the precedent which I myself set in the Agricultural Rates Act, the form of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed to have followed exactly, adding—
"That Act was for expending two million pounds. This Bill is to raise money. At any rate I followed exactly the precedent which the right hon. gentleman now denounces."
Upon examination that statement turned out to be absolutely incorrect. There was a vote taken and the Amendment was withdrawn.
What was the next stage? At that time I was suffering from illness, which became worse, and I was not in the House again for many months but I obtained the assistance of an excellent substitute in Sir Edward Carson, who, with the approval of the then Leader of the Party, Mr. Balfour, raised the question again on August 18, the, first vote on this subject having been taken on July 14. What happened then? Sir Edward Carson pointed out that "the whole difference between the two right hon. gentlemen was as to whether either House ought to have the power to reject these Rules." He went on to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the right hon. gentleman—meaning myself—had forgotten the precedent which he himself had set, and that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had added, "I have followed exactly the form in that Act, almost in the same words." The Chancellor of the Exchequer then said he had not the Act before him. All I know is that when he made the statement he was standing with a volume in his hand. Sir E. Carson said the Chancellor of the Exchequer was entirely wrong and what was the reply? An interruption from the Chancellor of the

1277
Exchequer, who said, "I admit that." Then Sir Edward Carson said—
"I have looked into this Act myself, and it is quite clear that so far from the fact being as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, the precedent is entirely on the other side. The precedent is that when Rules of this character are to be enacted they are laid before Parliament in the form proposed in this Amendment."
That is the Amendment which I am moving now. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied to that by giving a promise that a clause would be put down if Sir Edward Carson was not satisfied. Sir Edward Carson replied:—
"I think the proposition of the right hon. gentleman is a very good one. It was when Clause 3 was under discussion that he promised to bring in a new Clause and we have not yet seen it. I do not know when we will see it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment."
Nothing more was done about that until quite late in the autumn. On September 30 a new clause was moved by Mr. Hobhouse in these words:—
"All Rules and Regulations made by the Treasury or by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or Revenue under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if an address be presented "—
I need not read the whole of it—
"to his Majesty by either House of Parliament his Majesty in Council may, if he thinks fit, annul the Rule or Regulation or Provision."
That clause was an exact reproduction of the first clause which was moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who admitted he had been entirely wrong. That really is an extremely serious matter. I thought it was quite wrong at the time, and I never varied in that opinion. I always resolved to call attention to the subject whenever I had the opportunity and to endeavour to secure an amendment.
There is another very serious matter. To what has this led? It has led to a whole series of legal difficulties and cases repeated over and over again, as the result of Regulations which could not be controlled, being issued by the Treasury, only to be proved in many cases to be contrary to law. Since that time much work has necessarily had to be abandoned. I would give the House one or two instances, because I desire to make my case perfectly clear. There was a Form called Form IV,—a well-known Form—which was issued in millions, with the result that after pro-
1278
tracted and costly litigation it was found to be illegal and not to conform with the Schedule passed by Parliament. The case is given. It was Dyson versus the Attorney-General. Canon Force versus the Attorney-General was another. The same thing happened with another Form—Form VIII. When the validity of this Form was challenged the Courts decided that it was ultra vires. Then there was the notorious case, known, I believe, as the Lumsden case, with which I was not acquainted myself. None of these things could have happened if there had been the power in either House of Parliament to move an Address objecting to the course which was being taken, and the whole thing would have been stopped at once. It deprived the House of a right which it had had for years. And let me add something which is very remarkable, and of which I do not suppose the House has any idea. All these operations of the Finance Act of that year were carried out by these Regulations, which never had the sanction of Parliament, and they have resulted in a waste of money which is something inconceivable. I can vouch for the accuracy of the cost, as it has been published by an association of which the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, is President. I know Lord Desborough was most anxious to be present at this debate and to take an effective part in it.
The figures have been published by the Land Union, and a passage in their Report deals with the cost of the valuation of land, done under Regulations which never had the sanction of Parliament, from 1910 to the 31st of March. 1915. It shows the expenses on the one side and the receipts from the taxation imposed on the other, for 1916, 1917 and 1918—and what is the general result from 1910 to 1918? Comparing the cost of the valuation and the receipts from the three land duties, including the estimates for 1917–18, the expenditure is £4,074,397, and the receipts £876,096; or a total loss to the Exchequer for the years 1910 to 1918 of £3,198,301. I venture to think I have made out an exceedingly strong case which ought to be answered.
What are the objections, the objections raised in the debate the other day? Again I express my profound regret that I was not able to be present. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was the chief objector. He said it was a form which

1279
had been in use for a great many years. With the three exceptions which I have mentioned, and with the most profound respect for the noble and learned Lord's opinion, I believe he was wrong, The Lord Chancellor did not say positively that it was so, but he said he was informed that it was the case that the existing provision of which I am complaining had been in force for a great many years. With great respect I must adhere to my opinion that it is wrong, until the contrary has been shown. Secondly, he said it was not desirable that either House on its own motion should have this power. Thirdly, he said, supposing the two Houses differed, what was to be done, what position would arise? There, with great respect, I do not think anything would have happened. If the two Houses had differed the Regulation would have been dead, either House having the power to stop it. That would have been the whole situation which would have followed, and nothing else could have been done except a new Act of Parliament to repeal the arrangement which then had force of law Fourthly, he said it is unconstitutional to give either House the right to abrogate an Order in Council. What is an Order in Council? An Order in Council is nothing whatever but a decision of the Cabinet, and my complaint is that all these matters were taken out of the hands of Parliament altogether and placed entirely at the decision of the Cabinet, with no other power to control them. It is a right, I maintain, which has been invested in cither House for any number of years.
Now I want to ask this question of the noble and learned Lord, Since when has this been his opinion? It was not always his view. When the Agricultural Rates Act was being carried through the House of Commons I was the Minister in charge of the Bill, and the present Lord Chancellor was acting, as Solicitor-General, in my assistance. And I am glad to take this opportunity of saying in public, what I have said often to him in private, that no man was ever more loyally or ably served than I was by him at that time, and that without his assistance under the enormous difficulties which we had to face I do not believe it would have been possible to carry the Bill. Naturally, before this debate I looked back to Some of the old debates and discussions, and what did I find there? The answer to the Lord Chancellor about this not being constitutional and all the
1280
other objections he raised to this thing is this—and I am going to quote it from Hansard in his own words. I find that on May 31, 1896, I had accepted ten years instead of twenty-one, and another Amendment on which we were still disputing was being discussed. The Solicitor-General suggested that the Amendment should read, "If neither House of Parliament passes a Resolution within ten days they shall be binding in law until varied in the same manner." Those words will be found in the clause of the Agricultural Rating Bill and in the Amendment which I have put on the Paper to-night. That seems to me to be a very strong case. How was his suggestion followed? The Amendment as amended by the addition of the words suggested by the Solicitor-General was at once agreed to.
I am afraid that I have detained your Lordships at considerable length. It has been, I assure you, very much against my will, and I have been in a position in which I was hardly able to make the effort that I have done. The noble Lord opposite insisted upon going on with the debate. He would not listen to my appeal to allow me to make this statement to-morrow, and I have done, under difficult circumstances, the best that I could do. What I am appealing for is a reversion to the old principle which prevailed at the time to which I have referred, and which embodied one of the most valuable privileges of your Lordships' House and of which you were deprived in 1896 during the passage of the Agricultural Rates Act,—deprived by statements which were made that were absolutely contrary to the fact. I think that I have said enough to make good my case, and I will conclude by moving the Amendment that stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Clause39 page 26, line 35, leave out from ("if") to the end of subsection (1) and insert ("neither House of Parliament within the next subsequent ten days on which that House has sat next after any such rule, regulation, or provision is laid before it, passes a resolution adverse thereto, it shall have effect as if it were enacted in this Act, and the validity of any proceedings which may in the meantime have been taken under any such rule, regulation, or provision shall not be prejudiced by the subsequent passing of a resolution adverse thereto").—(Viscount Chaplin)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount has advocated the Amendment in a very interesting speech which recalls many memories of the pleasant days that

1281
we spent together, in another place. I would point out that the Amendment now before the House is absolutely different from that which we discussed the other night. To that Amendment there were insuperable difficulties. It was proposed that if either House of Parliament passed an Address asking the Crown to annul an Order in Council which had been made, thereupon, on presentation of that address, the Order in Council should be annulled. That was a form of legislation which was open to the gravest, possible objection, and I should have been sorry if it had been adopted. The present proposal is on very different lines. If I rightly understand it, it proceeds on the principle that all legislation of this kind by Order in Council is a dedicated authority, and that the dedication is to be to this extent, that if the Order in Council, after it is made and is laid upon the Table of both Houses, runs the gauntlet of those Houses and no Address is presented, it is then to become effectual in law. That is the proposal now before this House.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: That was the Amendment in the Agricultural Rates Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend is perfectly accurate. I am pointing out that the Amendment now proposed is very different from that which we were discussing the other night, and is not open to the very serious objection which undoubtedly lay against that Amendment. If the principle of my noble Friend's Amendment is as I have stated, I think he will see that its form is open to very considerable objection, because he goes on to say that if no address is presented within ten days the Rule shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, and the validity of any proceedings taken in the meantime under the rule "shall not be prejudiced by the subsequent passing of a Resolution adverse thereto." It begins by assuming it is to take effect if no Address is presented, and then it goes on to provide that, for the case of proceedings which have already been taken, it would not be affected by a subsequent Address. That, it strikes me, is a flaw in the Amendment of my noble Friend.
But there is on the Paper immediately preceding the Amendment of my noble friend, and Amendment standing in the name of the Marquess of Salisbury, and if
1282
I may read the clause in the form in which the noble Marquess intends to amend it, it will read as follows—
"(1) All rules, regulations, or provisions made by Order in Council under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith; and unless and until an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such rule, regulation, or provision is laid before it, praying that the rule, regulation, or provision may be annulled, such rule, regulation, or provision shall have effect as if enacted in this Act."
That seems to be free from the objection which undoubtedly attaches to the proposal in the name of the noble Viscount who has just spoken. I think it might have been better to have adhered to the clause as it stands in the Bill, which undoubtedly has been used with great benefit. I cannot tell my noble friend the precise number, but I am informed by the best authorities that it has been used in a great many cases, and it has been the most usual form of clause for a great many years past.
But I feel sensible that the other night there was a strong demonstration of feeling in the direction that until the Order lies on the Table of the House for a certain time without any adverse Resolution being passed, the Order should not take effect. That, of course, is a perfectly legitimate way of doing the thing, if it is desired. The form of clause dealing with Orders in Council which is incorporated in the Bill, the usual clause would in practice work that way. It would be extremely rare where the sort of reserve power was brought into play for the purpose of not making the Order. In 999 cases out of 1,000, perhaps more, if a Resolution of the House was passed against the Order in Council, the Order in Council would be annulled. There might be very special circumstances which would give the responsible adviser of the Crown pause in taking such a course. Although my noble friend Lord Stuart of Wortley referred to some such case the other night, I do not know what it was, and such cases would be extremely rare. However that may be, although I think it may have been well to adhere to the usual form, I do not think that the advantages are so overwhelming as to make it improper, if your Lordships' House adhere to the view which animated a great many of your Lordships the other night that this clause should take the form which will assert (if I may use the

1283
expression) the right of this House without the other to prevent the provision from coming into operation, I do not think there would be anything improper in not taking a Division on the point if that is the general sense of the House.
At the same time I cannot say that we can undertake to make this a Government Amendment. I do not know what the other House may say to this. All I can say is that I am not prepared to oppose it if the general sense of your Lordships' House is in favour of the adoption of this Amendment, which as my noble friend has stated, is in a form which was adopted in the Agricultural Rating Act of 1896, and which is very different indeed from the Amendment which was put down the other night. I understand that the Government cannot undertake to carry it through Parliament, but I should not be prepared to divide the House against the Amendment. For the reasons I gave the other night I think it is better to adhere to the usual form of clause; but in practice it will make very little difference, because, under the usual form of clause, in almost every case the Crown would annul the Order in Council on a Resolution being passed by either House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sure that those of your Lordships who have taken a special interest in this particular matter will be very grateful to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for the tone of his speech to-night. He will forgive me for saying that it is not absolutely the same tone as that of the speech which he delivered when he was sitting on the Bench opposite in Committee. That is a very small matter, however; and we are very grateful to him for his acquiescence in the Amendment of my noble friend in the form which he has suggested. I think that my noble friend Lord Chaplin is to be congratulated upon the achievement which he has effected; because there was arrayed against us on the last occasion a phalanx of the most lofty legal talent which might have daunted the heart of my noble friend.
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has said that he thinks that really the form in which this provision stands in the Bill would have done very well. I am bound to say that I should have said so until last week, but I am afraid that the statements which were made last week have dealt a very serious blow at the received form of this particular provision.
1284
I do not know, of course, what view another place may take of this Amendment when it is inserted in the Bill, but if there is any resistence the House of Commons will be told that in the opinion of some of the greatest legal authorities in the country the old received form gives no real security that the Resolution of either House of Parliament will prevail against the decision of the Cabinet. That was the announcement made in Committee, and it was not merely that theoretically it might be so, but a noble and learned Lord said that not only was it theoretically true that the Resolution of one House of Parliament would not be sufficient to annul an Order in Council, but that it ought to be true. He went on to say that it was not right that one House of Parliament should have the power of stopping an Order in Council in the circumstances as they exist in the Bill. That was a tremendous statement, and made a most profound difference in the way in which we regard this particular provision. That will be told to the House of Commons, and they will know that if they restore this clause to the form in which it now stands they will be depriving themselves of any absolute security against the growing power and supremacy of the Cabinet of the day.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I suggest that Viscount Chaplin should withdraw his Amendment in order that the one standing in the name of the Marquess of Salisbury may be moved in its stead. It certainly is free from the blot which does attach to the Amendment of the noble Viscount.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I move my Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps it would be more convenient if I read Clause 39, subsection (1), as it will run after being amended in the way proposed by the noble Marquess—
"(1) All rules, regulations, or provisions made by Order in Council under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith; and unless and until an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such rule, regulation, or provision is laid before it, praying that the rule, regulation, or provision may be annulled, such rule, regulation, or provision shall have effect as if enacted in this Act."
Amendments moved accordingly.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I suggest that we should take the Amendments, none of which require discussion, until we roach Clause 43. Everything is agreed.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: Is Lord Muir Mackenzie not going to move his Amendment to insert as a new clause: "Where a person has been returned as a member to serve in Parliament, the subsequent acceptance by him from the Crown of any office of profit shall not vacate his seat"?
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord is not here. Moreover, the Amendment is out of order.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I did not hear what was to be done with the noble, and learned Lord's Amendment.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: it is not in order.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not admit in the least that it is out of order; but the noble Lord is not here, and no doubt he will manage his own affairs.
Clause 40:
VISCOUNT PEEL VISCOUNT PEEL moved the insertion of an additional interpretation. The noble Viscount said: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 16, at end insert:
"(8) The expression ' dwelling house ' includes any part of a house where that part is occupied separately as a dwelling-house."—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42:
VISCOUNT PEEL: The Amendments next standing in my name are drafting Amendments. I do not move the new paragraph after line 20.
Amendments moved—
Page 29, line 4, leave out paragraph (a) and insert as a new paragraph
"(a) The expressions 'borough' and 'municipal borough' mean 'burgh.'"
Page 30, lines 39 and 40, leave out ("any person under whom he serves") and insert ("the person in whose service he is").
Page 31, line 16, at end insert ("'lands and heritages' has the game meaning as in the Valuation Acts;")
Page 31, line 26, leave out ("is") and insert ("has")
Page 31, line 27 leave out ("occupying") and insert ("occupied")
Page 31, lines 38 and 39, leave out ("Any person under whom he or she serves") and insert ("the person in whose service he or she is")
Page 31, line 40, have out ("not")
Page 31, line 42, leave out ("except") and insert "only").—(Viscount peel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD LAMINGTON: In the absence of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in his name. The proposed new subsection is the one which I dealt with the other night in Committee. I understand that the noble Viscount will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, after line 21, insert as a new subsection:
"(6) The section of this Act relating to provision as to disqualification shall have effect as if the following provision were enacted therein:
"A person shall not be disqualified from being registered or from voting as a parliamentary or local government elector by reason that he is the town clerk or depute town clerk of any burgh or the assessor under the Valuation Acts in any burgh or county."—(Lord Lamington.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I accept that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: By the leave of the House I should like to move my next Amendment, not as it appears on the Paper, but in another form. It is merely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, after line 40, insert as a new paragraph:
"(11) in Subsection (5) of the Section of this Act relating to expenses of registration the expression the council whoso clerk the registration officer is' means 'the council appointing the registration officer.'"—(Viscount Peel)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL GREY: My next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 9, leave out from ("in") to ("and") in line 11, and insert ("two or more sheriffdoms, the sheriff of such one of those sheriffdoms as the Secretary for Scotland may appoint."—(Earl Grey.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: May I, before the Amendment on the Paper in the name of Lord Balfour of Burleigh is moved, move the insertion of a new subsection referring to the constituency of Orkney and Shetland.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, after line 26, insert as a new subsection:
"(12) Notwithstanding the provision in subsection (1) of this section of this Act relating to polis to be held on one day at a General Election, the poll for any General Election for the constituency of Orkney and Shetland shall remain open for two consecutive days as heretofore."—(Viscount Peel.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps the noble Viscount will be good enough to explain the Amendment which he has proposed without notice.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It merely retains the existing law as to elections in Orkney and Shetland because of the difficulty of navigating between the islands.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What affect will it have on the point that all elections must be on one day, which is one of the principles governing the Bill?
VISCOUNT PEEL: It will be an exception, and the only exception there is to the principle. It is impossible, I understand, to hold the election there on one day.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Impossible to hold the election there on one day! Perhaps the noble Viscount will explain the matter to us.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is a physical impossibility. I do not know whether the noble Marquess has ever been there.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, I have never been there.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have, and I can assure him of the impossibility of getting about these islands. This provision is in the Ballot Act, and the Amendment is merely carrying on the law which has been in existence for forty years.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON, on behalf of LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH, moved the insertion of a new subsection.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, after line 9, insert as new subsection:
"(15) Not withstanding anything in this Act it shall not in the year nineteen hundred and nineteen and subsequent years be necessary—

"(a) As regards any burgh or any registration unit therein, if the town council of the burgh so resolve, to show or distinguish in any spring register the names of persons entitled to vote as local government electors, or

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

"Provided that—

"(i) a resolution under this section shall not have effect unless it is passed as respects the spring register in any year before the first day of January in that year, and as respects the autumn register in any year before the first day of July in that year.

"(ii) for ail the purposes of the registration of local government electors in any burgh or county, or registration unit therein to which any such resolution applies the last preceding local government register shall remain in force until a new local government register comes into force.

"in this subsection ('burgh') has the same meaning as in the Town Councils (Scotland) Act, 1900, and('county') means a county exclusive of any such burgh."—(Lord Lamington.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I accept that.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand that the Government will now adjourn.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think it would meet the convenience of the House if we finish the Report stage and Third Reading to-morrow, and therefore I beg to give notice to move the suspension of Standing Order XXXIX. It is probable your Lordships will desire that this Bill should be taken first to-morrow, and therefore I give notice to move the suspension of Standing Order XXI, in respect of the Franchise Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Does the noble Earl propose that the House should sit after dinner to-morrow? Is it proposed to take the Non-ferrous Metal Industry Bill to-morrow? I understand that there will be some discussion.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I believe that it will be more convenient for that Bill to be postponed until Wednesday. I am afraid that it will be necessary to sit after dinner to-morrow. I hope not, devoutly; but I am afraid we shall have to.
Further consideration of the Representation of the People Bill on Report adjourned till to-morrow.

METROPOLITAN POLICE BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a to-morrow.
NON-FERROUS METAL INDUSTRY BILL.
Second Reading (which stands appointed for to-morrow) put off to Wednesday next.
MIDWIVES (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a to-morrow (The Lord Privy Seal (L. Wigan (E. Crawford))). (No. 130.)
MILITARY SERVICE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Wednesday next (The Viscount Peel). (No. 131.)

NATIONAL REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a to-morrow (The Viscount Peel). (No. 132.)
House adjourned at five minutes past twelve a.m.