On a point of personal explanation, I wish to say that yesterday I complained that a question which I had handed in appeared as an unstarred question and not as a starred question. I trusted to my memory in saying that it was a starred question, and I was in error. The question was not starred. I express my regret to you, Mr. Speaker, to the House, and to the Clerk at the Table.

Can the Leader of the House say what business it is proposed to take to-day, and whether the second Order [Petroleum (Production)—Payments and Expenses] is to be postponed?

If there is time it is proposed to take the second Order.

May I ask whether in the circumstances that decision can be revised? The second Order is, I am afraid, a little controversial and needs some debate. I believe it would facilitate matters if the discussion were taken on Wednesday before we go into Committee, so that we can have one discussion instead of two discussions on the same matter.

I will consider that.

Could not the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that Orders 2 and 3 [Petroleum (Production) Bill] will not be taken? We might then take Orders 4 [Bills of Exchange (Time of Noting) Bill] and 5 [Naval and Military War Pensions, etc. (Local Committees) Bill], and we should be able to have the various Orders connected with the Petroleum Bill taken together at a time more convenient to the House.

I wish to consult the convenience of the House, and on the whole I think we should not gain anything by pressing the matter now.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how far it is proposed to go with the Representation of the People Bill to-day?

Not beyond the Third Schedule.

I beg to move, in paragraph (2), after the word "names" ["contains names"], to insert the words, "addresses and the register numbers." The object of this Amendment is to make assurance doubly sure, so that there can be no doubt on the subject.

This will, of course, be done, and the form to be prescribed will provide for this being done. That being so, it is better not to specify one thing to be done, leaving out others which are equally required.

I should like to know whether we can see the form. It will greatly facilitate the discussion of the Schedule if we have some idea what the form will be. This Amendment raises exactly the kind of question in which we are all interested. This Bill is somewhat of a new departure in registration practice. I do not quarrel with the shape of these Schedules, and I think that small details are much better provided for in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. With respect to the Orders in Council, I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that it would facilitate matters if we could see these Orders. I do not know whether he is acquainted with the precedent of the Irish Local Government Act. That was very largely managed by Orders in Council, and all kinds of things were enabled to be done by Order in Council which normally would have been done by Statute. The Government of that day issued the Orders in Council in time for the discussion in Committee, and we have the Orders in Council before when the Committee discussion took place. This is an innovation of a similar kind involving matters which hitherto Parliament has watched very jealously. There is no matter in the whole of Parliamentary practice which Parliament has watched so jealously as all questions connected with franchise and registration. Hitherto it has been the practice to deal with them with the greatest minuteness in Parliament itself. I think that we are creating a good precedent in departing from that. At the same time this is a matter of great interest to all persons familiar with the work in revision Courts, and it would ease some of our minds if, before the Bill is considered on Report, we could see the class of machinery which the Government propose to put into force by Orders in Council in order that, if there is any very revolutionary innovation, which I do not anticipate, we shall have an opportunity of discussing it before Parliament finally passes the Bill.

This brings up the question which I put yesterday as to Orders in Council. I objected from the first to the feature in this Bill that there is far too much left to Orders in Council. These matters ought to be discussed here. I am responsible for certain Amendments to the Schedules which are intended to ease and simplify the working of the Bill, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be able to accept many of them, and no doubt he will introduce many of them into the Orders in Council. But I should like to see the Orders in Council in order to know what is in them, so that we might have an opportunity of discussing them. There are many Amendments on this Schedule which would greatly simplify the working of the legislation. For instance, with regard to making up the rules and the columns of voters and their designation, in Stockport I believe that they have a most excellent system of voting rules, in which the various electors appear in separate columns. I do not know what my right hon. Friend proposes to do about the matter and whether he is going to leave everything to the Orders in Council and not deal with those Amendments as they arise on the Schedule.

I am going to deal with the Amendments.

If the right hon. Gentleman is going to deal with the Amendments I do not know what he is going to leave over.

These Orders in Council will be circulated, but they will be of a very long and detailed character, and contain regulations in reference to many matters with which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Healy) is quite familiar.

I refer now to the particular class of matter referred to in this particular Amendment—taking the voters' address. That point is at present dealt with most minutely by statute. I think that we should have the advantage before the Report stage of seeing at any rate the form of the Orders in Council under this Bill. I am quite aware that the Orders in Council will have to be laid upon the Table of the House, but that gives only a very imperfect opportunity of discussing these questions in detail. The Debate has to be taken after a certain hour, and it is always more or less contracted. If the Orders in Council were made known to us before the Report stage it would be possible, where it was necessary, to raise important matters of detail such as that to which the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) has referred. I should have thought that the Government Departments concerned would have had this matter in hand. This Bill has been before the House a considerable time, and I am quite sure that the several parties concerned have already been devoting their minds as to what they are to do when the Bill passes into law. I certainly would like to see before the House finally parts with this Bill the final form in which the Government departments concerned wish to leave this matter of registration. I am more jealous about it as I gathered from the right hon. Gentleman yesterday that the Irish part of the matter will not be dealt with in Ireland and by Irish lawyers, but will be dealt with in England. This makes it still more desirable that the House should have the benefit before the final passage of the Bill of getting some idea of the class of matters which the Government intend to put forward in their Orders in Council. This is a very useful Schedule, and I do not disagree with anything in it, but it leaves the matter largely a skeleton. The flesh and blood will have to be put on by Orders in Council. I do not object to that, but I do say with great respect—and the precedent to which I have already referred bears me out—that it would be very useful to this House and very enlightening to Members to have, before the Report stage, at any rate, the form of the Orders in Council.

I understand from what the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway has said that he objects to so many things being left to Orders in Council.

What I said was that I would like to see the Orders in Council in draft before we part with this Bill in this House.

I am sorry that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. I thought that I could, but—

That is why I interrupted. I was afraid that the right hon. Baronet was going to agree with me.

I have said a great many times that I do not believe in this system of Orders in Council. They should be settled in this House. This House is supposed to be—I am afraid it is only a supposition—the governing power of the country. It ought to decide what is to be done and what is not to be done. It is a very small point. What is the objection to the addresses being put into the Bill? Why should they be left to Order in Council instead of the Bill? Am I to understand that the Order in Council enacts that the addresses should be given? If it is going to do that, then I really cannot see why the Amendment should not be accepted, and the addresses put in the Bill. I really do hope that the House of Commons will not lie down under this refusal of the Government to accept the Amendment

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in parapragh (2), after the word "to" ["so as to show"], to leave out the word "show," and to insert instead thereof the word "distinguish."

The Schedule provides for separate divisions for Parliamentary and local government electors, and the object of this Amendment is to cover one or two of the succeeding Amendments on the Paper, and to use the word "distinguish" instead of the word "show," to mark those who are entitled to vote as Parliamentary electors and not as local government electors, and those entitled to vote as local government electors but not as Parliamentary electors.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think me captious when I say that I prefer the plan of the old Parliamentary register under which you have a list of the voters who are entitled to vote in a Parliamentary election, and in regard to which there can be no contention or difficulties raised. But if you had a list marked in a way to distinguish who was a Parliamentary voter and who was not, it might be said, "Oh, but that is a printer's error," and numerous cases of dispute might arise. A Parliamentary register, containing the names of voters entitled to vote, is plain and simple, but a list which partly consisted of Parliamentary voters and partly consists of person on the local government register who are not entitled to vote at a Parliamentary election at all, would lead to confusion and mistakes. I do not see any advantage in this proposal. We have a perfectly plain and simple machinery at present in the lists of units contained in the Parliamentary list and the list of units contained in the local government list. There are numbers of women at the present moment who are not entitled to vote for Parliamentary purposes, but are entitled to vote for local government purposes. At present when the register is made up for Parliamentary purposes the names of local government voters who are not entitled to vote at Parliamentary elections are omitted, and there is nothing in the Parliamentary list except what relates to Parliamentary elections; but with one list, which would purport to distinguish Parliamentary from local government electors, I am convinced that it would lead to confusion and errors. The present system of one list of those on the Parliamentary register, and then in addition a list of those for local government elections, is, I submit, the proper method. In the Parliamentary list you have only those names of people entitled to vote, and similarly in the case of the local government electons, so that there can be no confusion about it. I think that in this case the draftsmen were perfectly right in drawing the Schedule in the form in which they did, and I think it would be rash to introduce in a manuscript Amendment the proposal to revolutionise the Parliamentary register by substituting for it a form that would raise all sorts of difficulties which do not exist under the present perfectly plain system.

My opinion is in agreement with that of the hon. and learned Member opposite. I think that the Government draftsmen have drafted the Schedule rightly, but, as I understand, it is proposed to insert the word "distinguish" in place of the word "show," and thus to indicate by marks those who are Parliamentary voters. I think that would be a very much worse system than that which we have at present. I do not know how far to-day this Amendment settles the question. I am not quite sure about it, for I did not catch it; in fact, I do not know quite what is proposed. If it is only to use the word "distinguish," then it certainly ought to be inserted in the Order in Council, and I am convinced that if that were done the officials concerned would exercise the power of distinguishing in the way in which it is done at the present moment. I consulted some persons about this very question, because when I came to read the Schedule I was rather taken with the idea that it might be possible to have one list, and to distinguish by marks, but I was told by those with whom I discussed it—men of more practical experience than anybody even in the Local Government Board—that it would result in an infinity of mistakes. The first objection is that when you come to have an election it is much better to have a list of the names of the people who are entitled to vote, but if you are going to distinguish the names of those who are entitled and are not entitled, then I think that such a plan must lead to an infinity of errors. The important thing is to get the register right, and not give occasion for questions to arise or to be propounded at the time of the election. Therefore, to obviate such difficulties, it is better to have a list of the people who are entitled to vote than try to simplify matters or economise expenses by having only one list on which the different classes of voters are to be distinguished. I hope that the Home Secretary and the officials of the Government will consider this matter, and that they will not, for a moment, adopt the suggestion to distinguish people by different marks on one list.

I understood that the right hon. Gentleman meant in putting in the word "distinguished" to leave it open as to the manner in which that was to be done. I had intended to move another Amendment providing for separate columns, and in that way you would dispose of the matter on one roll very simply and effectively. Distinguishing marks, I think, as to voters for Parliamentary and local government purposes, would be a great source of trouble. If my right hon. Friend prefers to leave the matter as it is, I suggest he should consider putting in the word "column," which I think would be, better than the other method.

What is wrong with the present system?

I hope the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway will not object in this instance to my agreeing with him. I do not mind in the least if the two lists are made up in the one volume, provided the first part deals with the Parliamentary register and the second part with the local government register. I think it is absolutely necessary that the two should be kept separate; if not, what is likely to happen? Somebody comes along and asks the returning officer for a voting paper. He has to look to see if there is a distinguishing mark, and in the hurry and bustle of an election, with a large number of people waiting, it is certain that mistakes will occur. Then again when Parliamentary agents send out intimations to voters as to where they are entitled to vote, in the hurry and trouble of an election, if you have only distinguishing marks, wrong names will be put in. I cannot see why the old custom should not be adhered to, namely, to have the Parliamentary electors a complete list in themselves, and local government electors on another list. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dickinson), who is a great authority on details of this sort, and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Healy), who is also, I believe, an authority on details of this sort, are in favour of the present system, and it certainly does seem to me to be common sense that the registers should be kept in separate divisions. I earnestly hope that the Government will adhere to their Bill, which I think for the first time is correct.

I should like to press the same argument on the right hon. Gentleman. I hope, before the discussion closes, he will be good enough to explain why he proposes the change. It seems to me that in order to avoid confusion we require the two lists. I personally prefer the existing system, unless the Home Secretary can sho wthat what he proposes is better.

1.0 P.M.

It was pointed out that by having the one list it would save expense and, in some ways, a certain amount of trouble. But, apparently, many people like the old way better, and if the Committee, as a whole, is of that opinion, perhaps it is better that we should have no Amendment. I should like to hear from somebody who likes marks the reason why.

I hope that the Home Secretary will drop the Amendment altogether. I think that the present system, as we know it, is much the best. You want to have a Parliamentary register which contains the names of those entitled to vote at Parliamentary elections, and no other names. I do not agree with the suggestion of leaving to the registration officers of the different localities the choice of system to be adopted. One does not want to have one system in one county and another system in an adjacent county or borough. If there are Scotsmen who wish that a different method should be employed in Scotland, surely the proper way to do so would be to put it in a Scottish Clause, and not to have a rule like this, which would leave it open to various constituencies, and possibly contiguous constituencies, to adopt different systems. In making up the register when you come to absent voters there will have to be some sort of distinguishing mark, and to introduce another distinguishing mark would create extra and quite unnecessary confusion. As far as I can see it is provided under this Subsection that there shall be three separate divisions, but may there not be circumstances under which you will have more than three? Is it not possible that the absent voter may be distinguished in a separate list or that women may be distinguished in a separate list, as is suggested in a subsequent Amendment?

In view of what has been said, I shall ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In paragraph (2), after the word "note" ["mentioned in the note"], insert the word "and."

Leave out the words "and any reference in these rules to the removal of a name from one division of the register to another shall be construed as including a reference to the removal or addition of any such mark from or to any name."—[ Sir G. Cave. ]

I beg to move in paragraph (2), to leave out the words "a, separate list for the whole registration area" and to insert instead thereof the words, "separate lists for the respective voting areas."

If one list is prepared in the constituency it will lead to a great amount of correspondence and trouble, and those in charge of the different polling districts, will not be quite certain whether an absent voter is on the list or not. If an absent voter is registered at the polling place of his residence, his relatives and neighbours can get into touch with him at once. My proposal will also lead to simplification in every direction, and also conform to the first part of Rule 1.

The proposed Amendment, I think, goes a little too far. As the Schedule is drawn there will be a list only for the registration area which may, I agree, be the constituency. It may include a borough or a county. That, I agree, is too large a list. On the other hand a separate list for each voting area would be going too far the other way. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that the words "a separate list for the whole registration area" should be kept in, but that there should follow the words "or where the area includes more than one constituency." You have an absolute list for each constituency then, although not for each polling district.

Does not this Amendment infringe upon the proxy vote? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman tells me that the right to vote by proxy will not be contingent upon the absent voters' list, and that the absent voters' list would be an entirely different list from the proxy voters' list, that, I think, would be a good answer, and the Schedule, as further amended by the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, will, I think, meet the case. I take it that at present the area would mean in the case of a borough the whole borough, and, probably, in the case of counties, in some cases the whole county, and in other cases, like Yorkshire, probably the area which is a separate unit. It seems to be quite plain that the absent voters' list should not be a list to cover the whole area, but only to cover the constituency. On the other hand, it would not be proper that the absent voters' list should be a list for a less unit than the whole of the constituency.

The Home Secretary has certainly met the large body of objection to the Schedule, as it stands, in the limiting of the list. It is very difficult to carry it much further. The absent voters' register, of course, will be equally open to each polling officer.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In paragraph (2), after the word "area" ["the whole registration area"] insert the words "or where the area includes more than one constituency for each constituency in the area."

Leave out the word "list" ["in this list referred to"] and insert instead thereof the word "Act."—[ Sir George Cave. ]

I beg to move, in paragraph (2) to insert the words:

"The registration officer shall prepare and include in each register as a separate list for each registration unit a list of the persons entitled to vote under the provisions of Section 1 of this Act relating to persons serving on war service."

As the Bill stands at present the names of the people voting for war service will be inserted in the list in the ordinary way. That, of course, is bound to cause a certain amount of confusion——

On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member's proposed Amendment not consequential on an Amendment which was not adopted by the House in the discussion on Part I. of the Bill? Naval and military voters come under Clause 5, and will be inserted in the absent voters' list under the provisions of the Bill.

I was just looking into that point. I think this is part of an Amendment which the hon. Member did not carry in Part I. of the Bill.

That may be the case.

I think it is so. There were some other similar proposals at the same time.

I beg to move, in paragraph (3), to leave out the words "registration officer" ["street order, unless the registration officer considers"], and to insert instead thereof the words "authority whose clerk the registration officer is or by whom he is appointed."

This is a manuscript Amendment, which will cover the point raised in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson). Objection was taken that this very important power ought not to be in the hands of the registration officer, but ought to be subject to directions from the authority which appoints him, and I think that is the present system. Therefore I propose to meet that point by this Amendment.

One of the greatest reforms ever made in the registration practice in Ireland was that which made it compulsory to have street lists in urban districts, and not lists in alphabetical order. For a long time, under our registration practice, when the number of voters was less numerous, the lists had to be made up in alphabetical order. The result was that when candidates proceeded to an election they had to cut up the register, and themselves practically prepare a new register with the names in street order. It is quite obvious that if you have names in street order it is much better for the purpose of canvassing. Accordingly at a very early stage it was made compulsory so far as Ireland was concerned to have the lists in the order of streets, and I should certainly object to the other method in Ireland. The local authority has no special interest in Parliamentary elections, though it has a great interest in local elections. If a question relating to Parliamentary elections is raised it is always considered as a party question; it is never considered on its merits. If a member of one party raises it, it is suggested that he has a plot in his mind by which he is going to blow the other party sky-high, and accordingly no one in local elections likes to touch anything relating to Parliamentary elections, except as an absolutely Parliamentary direction that they shall do so.

I quite realise the words which are to be used here would apply to Ireland, and it would therefore be necessary to deal with it in paragraph (33).

This will mean that in the local authorities there will be a discussion and division as to what the registration officer is to do. Surely it is better to appoint a registration officer and trust him with the discretion and business of making up the list. The registration officer is the man who should have that responsibility, and I suggest that the words should stand as they are now.

I hope the Home Secretary will not press his Amendment. I am strongly of opinion that the House of Commons ought to fix the plan on which the register is going to be made, particularly as regards the first part of this paragraph. I think it is a great mistake to give local authorities, so far as boroughs are concerned, the option of being able to alter the register if they so desire. I am speaking mainly from a London point of view. It would be awfully unfortunate in London if you were not going to have the registers made up in street order. Even then it has been extremely difficult, where you have three or four divisions of a register. A man comes in and tells you where he lives, and you have to find out on what part of the present register he is. He may be a householder, a Service voter, or a lodger. You have to refer at the present time to three different divisions of the register. Now, with the simplification of the franchise, I take it all these people will be in the street order alphabetically in the same way as the householders now on the register. I think it is very unfortunate if the Home Secretary allows the registration officer, or the local authority, as he now proposes, to have the option of changing that if they so desire, I think as regards boroughs we want one system. I think no one who represents a borough will disagree that the best register is a street register in alphabetical order, giving no loophole to anyone, official or local authority, to be able to alter that plan. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not only withdraw his Amendment, but will strike out the words "registration officer" in the paragraph, and lay down a rule, at least so far as boroughs are concerned. I do not speak for counties, though I have done by-election work there, and it is amazing to me to see the county registers made up in alphabetical order. But I have no authority to speak from the county point of view, though I do speak from the London point of view. We want the register in London to be made up in alphabetical street order, and we want there to be no loophole or any power given to any local authority or officer to alter that. I hope the Home Secretary will provide for that in the Schedule.

Will my hon. Friend say whether the register is not now according to street numbers in some cases, and not alphabetically?

So far as I know, the register is made up alphabetically as regards streets and numbers in streets, unless they are split up in wards. Where a ward goes down the middle of a street, and the street may be numbered odd and even, of course the numbers do not follow consecutively; but the great point is that we want a register in street order, and, as far as possible, of course, in consecutive numbers.

But that means it is the streets that are in alphabetical order, and when you come to the names it is according to the numbers of the streets.

Yes.

In such a constituency as the Batley Division, which is really part of Dewsbury, and another division which is part of Wolverhampton, they are entitled to become county divisions, and the same argument would apply to them.

I should like to support the remarks which have just been made by my hon. Friend. I represent a county constituency with a very large population, and the lists are arranged according to streets, and they are not made up in alphabetical order as to persons.

This is a subject which is not raised by the Amendment. As a rule in the towns they prefer the streets, and in the country they prefer the names alphabetically. The Bill gives the option to the clerk, and some people say it is not right to do that. The authority may say, "We have an opinion of our own. We like street order and the clerk may prefer alphabetical order, but we want to have our own way." I think that is quite reasonable. The only effect of the Amendment is to take that option from the clerk and give it to the local authority.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In paragraph (3) leave out the words "the registration officer" ["alphabetical order, unless the registration officer considers"], and insert instead thereof the words "the same authority."—[ Sir G. Cave. ]

I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (5), to insert the words,

"It shall be the duty of the registration officer, on the application of any person during business hours and on payment of the prescribed fee, to furnish copies to the applicant of the lists or any part of the lists for the registration unit, including all lists mentioned in the respective rules made under this Schedule."

This power exists under the present law, and I think it is very important that it should be retained, more especially as under this Bill the registration officer will sit to hear whatever claims or objections are made to his work. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that members of the public should be able at all times not only to inspect but to purchase copies of the register.

I think it will be better to put words dealing with this point in Rule 25.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in paragraph (6), to leave out the words "where he does not himself perform the duties of overseer," and to insert instead thereof the words "or his deputy, as the case may be."

It is not clear exactly what the duties of the overseers are that the registration officer will not undertake, and it would simplify the matter if the registration officer had complete power to make them do what he wanted done in preparing the list. It is obvious that the registration officer will have to appoint deputies to do a great part of this work, and it will be better and simpler that these deputies should have the same power as the overseers. I think it will make the matter simple if the words I have suggested are omitted, and the words I have moved are inserted in their place.

I think the point which the hon. and gallant Member has in mind is that the overseers should include anybody who performs the duties of overseers. I am going to move on line 41 the addition of words to provide that the word "overseer" shall include any person who for the time being is performing the duty of overseer, and I think that covers this point.

Would it not be advisable in this proposal to change the word "may" to "shall"?

I wish to ask on a point of Order if the words proposed to be left out are not kept in, would it then be possible to move a subsequent Amendment to the same effect? Otherwise the Irish case will not be provided for in accordance with the promise made by the Chief Secretary.

If the present Amendment is negatived, the result will be that the Committee will have decided that the words "where he does not himself perform, the duties of overseer" shall stand part of the Schedule, but the next words can be dealt with separately.

We think it is necessary to keep in these words, and we invite the Chief Secretary to tell us how matters will stand.

So far as Ireland is concerned, I think it would be better to insert appropriate words in the Application Clause.

I myself thought it might be possible to deal with it in the Clause applying these provisions to Ireland, and if that be possible it is all right.

I have been considering this matter with my advisers, and the real question is whether it is more convenient to deal with it somewhat hurriedly at the present time or to frame words to give effect to the promise I made last night and to introduce them on the Report stage.

Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is postponing dealing with the matter until the Report stage? I thought the promise was to deal with it in the Schedule.

No. We said we would do our best to deal with it in the Schedule, but I must look at it and see which is the best way. The question is whether the promise should be discharged at this stage or on the Report stage after communication with all the parties interested.

The Irish promise turns rather on the word "may" or "shall."

That is so

If these words are inserted, the Irish promise will not be affected. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the object of these words as applied to England? The registration officer in England is to be the clerk of the comity council, who is generally the clerk of the peace. Surely that official is never the overseer. Similarly, I imagine that the town clerk in England is the registration officer in boroughs, and I do not suppose that anywhere in England the town clerk fulfils the office of overseer. [An HON. MEMBER indicated dissent.] Then it is to provide for the case where the town clerk does occupy the office of overseer.

I do not agree with the hon. Member. The words "where he does not himself perform the duties of overseer" is an equivocal expression and has a double meaning.

Amendment negatived.

That disposes of the next Amendment, unless hon. Members wish here to move the alteration of the word "may" into "shall."

May I ask whether the decision of the hon. Members to whom you allude will in any way interfere with my moving the same Amendment later?

I think, as the hon. Member has it on the Paper, he is entitled to first place.

I beg to move, in paragraph (6), to leave out the word "may" ["may require the overseers of any parish"], and to insert instead thereof the word "shall"

I do not move this Amendment with any desire to hamper the Home Secretary, but there is an indefiniteness about the word "may," and the overseers are really the men who generally do the work. They have had rather a nasty experience recently. They were called upon under the National Registration Act to do all the work of collecting the information, and they received the thanks of the President of the Local Government Board, but others who copied the results of their work were paid in a more substantial way. The overseers ask that this should be made a definite matter. In the past they have done the work, and they have supplied a very large amount of information, to the assessment committees, to the surveyors, and to members of the councils. It has been regarded as part of their general income, and they think it is only just that it should be a settled matter, and thoroughly understood that it is part of their duties for which they shall receive remuneration. They think it, should be made an imperative duty, and if it were so made it would satisfy a very large number of good servants who are capable of doing the work, and with whose work there has never been any fault found in the past. There is a very general feeling that this would only be fair justice, and I hope the Home Secretary will be able to accept the Amendment.

I know there has been a good deal of discussion about this point, and until yesterday I think there was very much to be said for the Amendment. As the hon. Gentleman knows, however, the Government yesterday accepted a Clause under which if the overseers are not employed and lose anything of their salary they shall be entitled to compensation. Once that is done the case is rather altered. The registration officer is to be responsible for the making up of these lists, and in most cases I do not doubt he will employ the overseers, or, rather, in practice, the assistant overseers, to prepare the original list and supply information. But there may be cases where they cannot be employed, and where he may prefer to employ somebody else, possibly someone who covers a wider area than the parish. In those cases it ought to be left free to the registration officer to employ the overseers or some other person. I see no objection to that, subject to the point that is now settled, that if the assistant overseers are not employed and lose part of their salary they shall be compensated. I hope the Committee will think it better to leave it in that way.

I quite understand the Home Secretary's explanation, but, as a matter of practical fact, are there any cases in which the clerk of the county council, or the town clerk, as the case may be, would be likely to wish to employ anyone but the assistant overseer? He has always done this work, and it seems to me exceedingly unlikely that the registration officer would desire to alter it—but, if he did, I do not think he ought to. Are there any specific cases the Home Secretary has in mind?

I was rather inclined to support the Amendment, but after the suggestion of the Home Secretary I think it may be better to leave the Bill as it is. It may be necessary not to employ the assistant overseer, although I should agree with my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sanders) that in all probability the assistant overseer will be employed. There may possibly be cases in which he cannot be employed, but as he is not going to suffer I am rather inclined to think it would be best to leave the Bill as it is.

The fact that the Government have accepted a new Clause, which I put down last night, giving compensation very materially affects this particular Amendment, but I am not perfectly certain whether that new Clause alone gives the right to compensation unless you give a statutory right in this Section. Supposing that the overseers continue to be employed for some years and then under this optional power the town clerk says he would like to employ somebody else. Will that be a subject of compensation? I am rather doubtful about it myself, but if the Home Secretary thinks it will then I think really the object of the Amendment has been gained.

It may not cover every case that occurs to my right hon. Friend who drew the Clause, but he quite naturally and properly followed the recognised form of compensation Clause which I think covers the point.

Amendment negatived.

I do not move my Amendment in paragraph (6), after the word "overseers" ["the overseers of any parish"] to insert "or any person for the time being executing any of the duties of the overseers," because I propose to move it in another place.

Amendment made: In paragraph (6), leave out the words "or any part of a parish, forming" and insert instead thereof the words "which or any part of which forms."—[ Sir G. Cave. ]

I beg to move, in paragraph (6), after the word "parish" ["any person from the parish"] to insert the words "it shall be the duty of the overseers for a parish to allow any person registered as a Parliamentary elector for the constituency, or a local government elector for the area in which the parish is situated, to inspect during business hours, free of charge ( a ) the books containing the poor rates made for the parish within the last twelve months and to make a copy of or take an extract from such book; ( b ) the returns of deaths supplied to the overseers by the registrar of births and deaths and to make a copy of or take an extract from such return."

I would point out that the right of inspecting rate books under the Rating Act is confined to ratepayers. Section 13 of 41 and 42 Viet., Clause 26, is not repealed and allows a Parliamentary voter to inspect the rate book for the borough and also the returns of deaths. The Acts which extend this to counties are, however, repealed, and unless this Amendment is inserted the agent for a county division will not be able to examine the rate books or returns of deaths in the various parishes of his division. I hope the Home Secretary will accept this.

The hon. Gentleman is quite right in making that point, but unless he objects it is desired to provide for the point in the Adaptation Schedule. If he will turn to page 1929 of the Order Paper he will see a reference to the Act of 1878 which gives us power in certain cases, though not in all.

I confess that I heard with some consternation a reference to an Adaptation Schedule. One of the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference was that the whole law relating to Parliamentary registration should be codified and embodied in one Act. It would be exceedingly easy to do that. I do not think a codifying Act would be in the least contentious, and if when this Act passes we have always to go through the enormously heavy task of finding out how much of the existing law is still in force I confess that half the pleasure I shall derive from its passage will be gone. I should have thought that the topic in this Amendment if not dealt with in the Act itself would be dealt with by Order in Council, and indeed that everything not provided for in this Act would be provided for by Order in Council. As we go on, however, I find that is not so, and that we are still thrown back upon old Acts that deal with a wholly different class of franchise, passed in wholly different circumstances, for a wholly different purpose, but which nevertheless are now kept alive and will be disinterred when this Act passes instead of our being done with all this Parliamentary rubbish, as I must call it. We shall have to go through a work of excavation to find out how much can be cast away and how much is necessary. I quite realise the great call upon Parliamentary time which the present situation in the country creates, but notwithstanding that, I do feel that the full advantage of the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference will not be given to the country if the House fails to carry out this particular portion—the codification of the law—so that we may find in one Statute the whole law relating to Parliamentary and local elections and be able to abolish all our text-books so far as they relate to these Acts. I can only hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider this point. It is most regrettable we should confine ourselves to passing this enactment when we might at the same time put in plain and simple form the whole law, so that it may be available both for laymen and lawyers.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in paragraph (6), after the words "removal of any person from the parish," to insert the words,

"If any question arises as to whether the expenses incurred by the overseers are reasonable or not, such question shall be referred to the Local Government Board, whose decision shall be final and binding upon all parties."

It will be seen on reference to the Section itself that a pretty smart penalty is imposed on the registration officer if he refuses or fails to perform any duty or duties connected with the registration, and the object of my Amendment is to safeguard this officer in cases where the neglect is due to something which an officer employed by him may have done or left undone. It is obvious that unless some provision like this is put in, the registration officer may come to the conclusion that he cannot employ the overseers. In the discussion we had recently the Home Secretary gave us to understand that in nine cases out of ten the registration officer would employ the overseers in the ordinary way, but if he is to be liable to this very smart penalty for any mistake made by the overseer he will be very careful as to whom he employs, and he may even say, "I cannot employ the overseer; I would rather do the work myself or employ people whom I can trust more than him." The effect of that would be that the overseer will lose his appointment. I suggest the best thing to be done would be that in cases where the oversight is due to the overseer and not to the registration officer the registration officer should not be made liable to this penalty.

The Committee has just give the registration officer greater freedom of choice in the appointment of his agents, and if he has that freedom I think he ought to be held responsible for what they do if they fail without reasonable cause. If it can be shown, however, that the overseer has in some way failed and that the registration officer had not the power to set the matter right, then I think that fact would be borne in mind by the Court.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg now to move an Amendment which I postponed a little while ago—at the end of paragraph (6) to insert the words,

"In this rule the expression 'overseers' includes any person who for the time being is executing any of the duties of the overseers."

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words,

The object of this Amendment is to provide a means for a prompt settlement of any dispute that may arise between the registration officer and the overseers as to any expenses which may have been incurred by the latter official. I dare say that until the Act is thoroughly understood and is got into working order a great many questions will arise as to the expenses incurred. If these questions had to be taken to the County Court or to some other Court to be threshed out, there must be a great deal of delay but if we had an authority like the Local Government Board to which they could be submitted it would be better for all concerned.

I agree that that is a point that ought to be dealt with. This particular Amendment only deals with certain expenses, namely, those incurred by the overseers. I have already undertaken on the Report stage to introduce words dealing with all the expenses of the registration officer, with a view to limiting them in some way, and I think that would be the proper place for dealing with the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

There is an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. King), who is absent at the moment, which, I think, it is desirable should be accepted. I will, therefore, move, in paragraph (7), after the word "Practices," to insert the word "Prevention" (Act, 1883).

I accept that.

Amendment agreed to.