I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words, "in the baggage or."

I gave an undertaking, when the Bill was in Committee, that if, on consultation with the Customs, it was found to be possible, I would move to omit these words. The object is that this provision should not be used as a cloak for imported plumage which is not in fact wearing apparel, and if these words are struck out it will be clear that it cannot be used to cover what I may call a trade in importation.

This Amendment received a large measure of support in the Committee, and there was an understanding then that if the Board of Trade could see their way to accept this slight alteration the promoters and those who were in opposition would agree.

This is really an extremely important Amendment, because, if these words remain in the Bill, any quantity of feathers of rare birds could be imported into this country, and the object of the Bill, which is to prevent the extermination of rare birds, would be defeated altogether. The opposition, in which I took part, moved in Committee, to strike out these words, for two reasons. The first was strategical, and the second was that by those who, if they got proper protection under the Bill, would be perfectly willing and anxious to protect as far as possible all birds that were in danger of becoming rare, it was thought that to leave these words in the Bill would be to incur that very danger, and, indeed, to render the Bill almost nugatory. Under those circumstances, although there was an honourable understanding that the Bill, if possible, should not be altered after it left the Committee, I for my part—and I believe I speak for most of the opponents of the Bill with whom the understanding was come to—am prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words

"The Board of Trade may by order add to or remove from the Schedule to this Act the name of any bird,"

and to insert instead thereof the words

"Where an application is made to the Board of Trade for the addition to or removal from the Schedule to this Act of the name of any bird, the Board may, after taking into consideration the recommendation made in the matter by the Advisory Committee to be appointed under this Act, by Order add to the said Schedule or remove therefrom, as the case may be, the name of that bird."

This is really a drafting Amendment. A Clause was inserted in Committee establishing an advisory committee to the Board of Trade, and, if this provision were not inserted, it might be possible for the Board of Trade to make an order one way or the other without consultation with the Committee. This makes it clear that the Committee will be consulted.

I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for making this proposal so to amend the Bill as to remove what may be a difficulty, and to remove doubts as to the proper interpretation of the Clause. As far as I am concerned I accept the Amendment, and I think it will be accepted both by the supporters and by the opponents of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), after the word "deliver" ["shall on importation deliver to an officer of Customs and Excise a written declaration'], to insert the words "within the period of one year."

I can make clear the object of this Amendment in a very few words. I may say at once that, if a period of one year is considered excessive, it would meet my case if a lesser period were provided—say six months, or even three months. If the notice must be delivered on importation, a case of rare specimens is very liable to be ruined. I can best explain the point by taking a concrete case. I am acquainted with a gentleman of high character and scientific qualifications who has a museum. He and his curator go to the uttermost ends of the earth to get specimens. Last year they were away in September, October, and November. Suppose that this gentleman found some rare things in some distant desert, and sent a consignment home by the first post—you have to do that, because these expeditions are exceedingly lengthy, expensive, troublesome, and even dangerous, as everyone knows who has been engaged in the pursuit of big game, the circumstances of which are similar to those attaching to these expeditions—if this gentleman in that event had to send home a case as to which he would not be in a position to deliver the necessary information at the time, the case would be liable to be put aside, and left undisposed of and, I believe, that ultimately it would be liable, under the rules of the Customs, to be destroyed or sold for what it would fetch, because it cumbered the ground in the Custom House. Some protection should be afforded to those licence holders who may be owners of museums or collectors of specimens, and who are very likely to be abroad, and therefore not able, in the nature of the case, to comply with the provisions of this Sub-section as it stands. I hope the Government will see their way, if not to grant a period of one year, at any rate, to grant some time for the purpose.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment. It is drawn in extraordinarily wide terms, and even if you substituted six months, or some other period, for a year, it would cut entirely at the root of the Bill. Everyone agrees that it is necessary to have a provision of this kind, and the only reason why my hon. Friend has moved it is because of his anxiety that occasionally there may be a rare specimen coming in. We shall act at the Board of Trade in very close consultation with the committee. Ornithological experts will be represented. A discretion is given to the Customs, and in cases of that kind that discretion will be exercised. My hon. Friend need not be under any apprehension that the spirit of the Bill will not be carried out.

I seconded the Amendment in order to get this statement from the right hon. Gentleman. I hope now that the House will accept it, and that the Amendment may be withdrawn.

I gather that the feeling of the House is against the Amendment, and I therefore withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (6), leave out the word "Section" ["authorised or required under this Section "], and insert instead thereof the word "Act."—[ Sir P. Lloyd-Greame. ]

CLAUSE 3.—(Appointment of advisory committee.)

Within four months of the passing of this Act the Board of Trade shall appoint an advisory committee consisting of—

All applications for addition to or removal from the Schedule to this Act shall be made to the Board of Trade, which shall refer such applications to the advisory committee, which shall after due inquiry submit a recommendation to the Board of Trade in regard thereto.

I beg to move, in paragraph ( d ), to leave out the word "Four," and to insert instead thereof the word "Six."

This Amendment to increase the number of members to be nominated by the Board of Trade from four to six is of even more importance now than it was before, since we have heard the statement of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill that the Board of Trade will take no action without consultation with the advisory committee. No one welcomes the appointment of the advisory committee more than I do, in fact, I was one of the first to propose it, and I hope it will come to maturity. But when one comes to look at the composition of the committee it ought to be considered with care. Two experts in ornithology are to be appointed. I do not know who they are, but an expert may be anywhere, and when the committee meets it may be very difficult to get even one expert present. With only two members we can really not be certain that an expert will always be present. Then there are to be three experts in the feather trade. I think we may be sure they will always be present, because it is a question of their trade and their living.

As a matter of fact, the committee ought to have been a committee of experts, combined with the Board of Trade, who would have heard the representations of the different sides. The experts in ornithology would give the scientific opinion, the Board of Trade would give the Government opinion, and the representatives of the feather trade ought properly to have come before the committee as witnesses, we may say, to present their case, and on the other side there ought to be experts who understand the question and would be able to answer them. With only four members to be nominated by the Board of Trade it strikes me that there is no opportunity given for proper representation of the societies to whom the Bill is due and the fruition of whose work on the Bill for the last fifteen or twenty years we see to-day. The representative of the Board of Trade or his successors will probably attend some of the committees. Then there must certainly be a permanent official, and there will also be a representative of the Customs. That leaves only one vacant position for the representation of societies such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which, in spite of its name, takes as great interest in birds as in animals, the Plumage Bill group, and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. We ought to have representatives of these or similar societies always available to give their opinion, because they understand questions connected with the trade. For that reason I propose that the Board of Trade be given the power, should they think fit, to nominate six members instead: of four. That will allow three members to be present on behalf of the Board of Trade and three experts from outside should they think it necessary.

I beg to second the Amendment.

While? appreciate my hon. and gallant Friend's: feelings in the matter, I appeal to him not to press the Amendment. When the Bill was being considered in Committee an arrangement was come to which was very fair and reasonable, and which has been very honourably observed throughout by the opponents of the Bill. On that ground alone it would be extremely unfair if we were to vary any of the terms of that arrangement. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that he need be under no misapprehension as to the fair nature of the committee. The promoters of the Bill are perfectly satisfied with the discretion which is left in the hands of the Board of Trade. I have no intention of being a member of the committee myself or of putting any permanent official of the Board of Trade on it. I appeal to my hon. and gallant Friend not to disturb the harmony of the proceedings.

I do not know what arrangement was come to in the Committee, but I deprecate the idea that an arrangement made in Committee can prevent the House exercising its own judgment. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider what the result might be unless some other member is added. One I think must be added. The committee consists of an independent chairman, five experts and four other members. If the four experts join together, which is extremely likely, there is an end of the whole matter. They will control the whole thing, and the independent chairman, who should have a controlling voice, disappears. I suggest that, at any rate, the four other members should be made five other members, in which case they will be equal in numbers to the experts, and then the independent chairman will, if necessary, decide. That is a reasonable proposition. If the hon. Gentleman will consent to put in "five" instead of "six," I hope the House will agree.

I am sure the House will agree with the right hon. Baronet's remark that it is very undesirable that any arrangement come to in Committee should be at all binding on the House as a whole, and I suggest that the appeal made by the Minister was more particularly to the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir C. Yate), because he was one of the promoters of the Bill, and the other promoters of the Bill understood that this was an arrangement between the promoters and those who were in opposition with regard to this Clause. Therefore I think the appeal made to my hon. and gallant Friend was perfectly in order, without in any way prejudicing the right of the House to vary any arrangement which has been come to. I should like to join in the appeal that has been made to my hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw the Amendment, and to assure him that, so far as the societies in which he has taken so great an interest are concerned, they are quite satisfied. Of course, we listen with the very greatest respect to any suggestion from my hon. and gallant Friend, in view of the great support he has given to this cause in the past, and the good work he has done in connection with this Bill, of which I happen to be in charge. I assure him, however, that the societies concerned are satisfied, and they feel that the interests of the birds will be adequately safeguarded in the composition of the committee. With regard to the remarks made by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for the City of London, he put the two experts in ornithology as against the birds. The impression of the Committee was that these experts in ornithology would certainly, if prejudiced at all, be prejudiced in the interests of the preservation of bird life. Therefore, although they might not go the full length of some people on the purely humanitarian point of view, they certainly would not be on the side of the trade if it was a question of extermination. I appeal to my hon. and gallant Friend and to the House to accept the arrangement come to, which is an im- provement on the original form of the Bill. As it originally stood the matter was left entirely to the Board of Trade. The matter is still in the hands of the Board of Trade, but they have in addition the advice of this advisory committee, which I feel certain will adequately protect the interests of all concerned.

I realise the importance of the point which the hon. Member has put, and I also realise the importance of the remarks made by the right hon. Baronet, I should like to ask the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Bartley Denniss), who is representing the opposition, whether he would consent to have three experts in ornithology instead of two. That would be a very fair compromise, We want to be certain that an expert in ornithology will always be present, and I have grave doubts whether, with only two experts on the committee, we could always be sure of getting the presence of a man who really understands the question. I would be the last to disturb any arrangement made, but I had no knowledge of this arrangement. It was not referred to me beforehand. If I had been consulted, I should have pointed out the position which I have explained to the House. I agreed with many of the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member for Finsbury (Lieut.-Colonel Archer-Shee) in Committee. He made a suggestion with regard to bustards and other birds shot both for food or as pests. I have shot many bustards and other game birds, and I know of no reason why the men who shoot such birds should not be allowed to send the plumage to their friends. I do not want this Bill to inflict hardship or inconvenience on individuals. I would like to see the Committee have power to arrange for all these sort of things. We do not want to interfere with the harmless sport of individuals, but we do want to stop general trade in hundreds of thousands of the skins of birds killed solely for the sake of their plumage, especially those killed during the breeding season.

I support the Amendment because I think it would be very much fairer if we had three experts in ornithology on the committee. In addition there would be three experts in the feather trade and four other members.

If it was desired to have three experts in ornithology on the committee, ought it not to have been moved in an early part of the Clause, because that comes under paragraph ( b ), and we have passed that. We are now on paragraph ( d ). I say nothing as to whether or not it is desirable to have three experts in ornithology, but I submit it cannot be done now.

It could be done if the present Amendment were withdrawn. If it be the view of the House that this Amendment should be withdrawn, we could then go back to an Amendment in paragraph ( b ), but not otherwise.

I hope we shall be able to make the Amendment so that we could have three ornithological experts in addition to the three experts in the feather trade and the four other members. The balance would then be equally divided.

I hope the hon. and gallant Member will see his way to withdraw the Amendment. It is true that this House, when the Bill comes down to it, is at perfect liberty to cut it about in any way it likes, but I would point out that the hon. and gallant Member was a Member of the Committee upstairs when we came to agreement, after many years of squabbling over this Bill. It was an agreed thing, not only in the Committee, but the agreement was come to really outside the House by experts in ornithology and the societies, and if those who are particularly interested in the matter are satisfied, I am sure that the House will be satisfied also. I think we have had enough of this Bill. It has been going on for many years, and I do appeal to the hon. and gallant Member to withdraw his Amendment and let the Bill be carried.

Can the hon. and gallant Member tell me who were the parties to the agreement outside. Were the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the other societies I have named parties to the agreement?

The hon. Member for Oldham will be able to give my hon. and gallant Friend more information. I understand from him that they were there, or, at any rate, that they approved of the agreement.

I thought it was with the feather trade that the agreement was made.

I appeal to the hon. and gallant Member not to persist in what seems to me to be a most ridiculous quibble. All this talk about ornithological experts seems to me to be quite outside the question. We are all ornithological experts since this Bill has come before Parliament. Roughly every second person over the age of 16 is an expert. It is commonly said of wars that the main benefit that society gets from them is that they burnish up our geographical knowledge. All the stuff that has been pumped out over this Bill in the way of differentiation between one sort of bird and another, exempting this bird and including that, seems to be sheer waste of time. I am not going to waste any more time, and I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman not to persist in his Amendment.

As one who was interested in this Bill in this House and who took a very patient interest in it in Committee, with the expectation that it would occupy a long period of time, may I say that when an agreement was reached it was a relief to all the Committee. When the arrangement was made we examined it fully and agreed to it. There was a sort of understanding, and though it does not bind the House it does bind the members of the Committee. I am a strong believer in carrying out any agreement which we have honourably entered into. If the battle of experts begins again I do not know where it is going to end. What I am afraid of is that if we disturb the balance of the arrangement made by the Committee we shall be disturbing every other interest and breaking faith with the people who are responsible for the agreement being entered into. Therefore I earnestly appeal to the hon. and gallant Member to withdraw his Amendment.

It will be negatived.

It will be, but I prefer to have the Bill agreed to by all.

With whom was the arrangement made?

The hon. Member has had two speeches.

May I submit, without putting my judgment against yours, Sir, that when a Bill has been in the Standing Committee the Mover of an Amendment can make as many speeches as he likes. I think that you will find that there is no limitation in the Rule about the number of speeches.

I think that the right hon. Baronet is right. For a moment I thought that there was only a right of reply after moving the Amendment.

I wish to ask only one question. Was the agreement made between the Natural History Museum and the feather trade or the Natural History Museum, the Plumage Bill group, and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds?

As a humble back bencher I support the remarks of the right hon. Baronet protesting against Bills coming here and the House being told that we must accept them because an arrangement has been made upstairs. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Not only in the case of this Bill, but in that of other Bills we have often been told that they have been decided by the Committee upstairs.

I do not for a moment challenge the right of this House to revise the decision of the Committee, but this is not merely a question which has been decided in Committee upstairs, but is a question on which there has been an agreement in the Committee as a compromise, and I would venture to make an appeal to those who were members of the Committee to stand by their agreement.

I have a great respect for hon. Members who spend so much time in going through Bills upstairs. But it does place one in an embarrassing position when one likes to support what the Committee does and at the same time one feels that one has to vote against it. I would like it to be fully understood that other Members disagree with the Committee upstairs and that they have a perfect right to do so. I am not a member of any of the Committees upstairs and therefore, when I give a Second Reading, I do so with the idea that a Committee will consider the Bill and that we shall decide afterwards. In a case like this when an arrangement is made we should have some explanation as to what the arrangement is and with whom it has been made. I protest against the idea that an arrangement made upstairs must necessarily be adopted by this House.

I heartily welcome this arrangement. I am very glad that the matter has come to a close in this way. It is very unfortunate that this question should be raised now, because the arrangement has been accepted by other parties in this matter. Though I quite agree that the House has the right to revise any arrangement which is made still, when two parties who are so absolutely divided as they have been on this question come to an arrangement there is something to be said in favour of that arrangement holding good when the parties are satisfied. I think that 10 members of this Committee are quite sufficient. Four are nominated by the Board of Trade, and the experts of the trade concerned are represented as well as experts in ornithology. I would appeal to the House to allow the Bill to go through as it is.

Might I have an answer to my question?

May we decide this question now?

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I agree thoroughly with this Bill, but there are one or two features about it which need a little comment. I desire to make my position quite clear. As a convinced free trader who is in favour of this Bill, I think that the machinery and the motive underlying it need looking into. What does the Bill do? In the first Clause it prohibits the imports of certain raw material. The machinery by which it is to do this is first of all absolute prohibition tempered by a licence. I find that a bureaucratic Department is invested with the power of granting licences under which people may import this particular raw material. To that Department is also confided the power of removing from or adding to the schedule certain articles. Under the circumstances it is absolutely necessary that I should make my position clear. What are the motives which underlie this Bill? They are a regard for the beautiful and humanitarianism. Both are very good motives and urgent enough for me as a free trader. Other Measures have been put forward on the ground of the safety of the realm and they have been supported by free traders from that point of view. The reasons of humanitarian interest and regard for the beautiful may not perhaps be quite so powerful as a regard for the safety of the realm, but I think they are sufficient to convince me that the Bill ought to be passed. If I had any more doubt about the matter I have only to look at the back of the Bill and see by whom it has been brought in. First of all, there is the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson). I find also the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. A. Williams), and amongst others we have the Member for Leith Burghs (Captain W. Benn). I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill, but in future perhaps hon. Members opposite who are inclined to criticise others on this side will begin their criticism at home.

I do not propose to follow the last speaker in his pleasantries. With regard to the Debate on the last Amendment, I think it only fair to make it quite clear that the arrangement come to in Committee was a Parliamentary arrangement, made, not between any outside authorities, but between the promoters of the Bill and those who led a very vigorous opposition to the Bill in Committee. After a number of sittings, conversations took place between the Parliamentary representatives on either side, and we are glad that with the assistance of the hon. and learned Member for Oldham (Mr. B. Denniss) we found a middle course and produced a Measure which will ultimately protect, perhaps more satisfactorily than the original Bill, the plumage of birds. There was no arrangement made by outside authorities, and it was an ordinary Parliamentary bargain.

I did not reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Melton (Sir C. Yate), because I thought it improper to enter into a controversy on the Bill. I agree that this was purely a Parliamentary arrangement. I am very glad to hear the last speaker say that the Bill now is a better Bill than that which went into Committee. It will possibly do more to protect the birds than the original Bill, and I hope it will form the basis at no distant date for an international arrangement by which the birds will be completely protected. That could not have been done under the original Bill. It is the reward I hope to achieve as a result of all the efforts I have made during the last seven years.

I am glad to have heard the statement as to the arrangement reached. I had no wish to upset any arrangement, but I did want to know what the arrangement was. I hope the Bill will enable us to put a stop to the importation of plumage in future, and that we may be able to come to some international arrangement on the subject. Our main object in this Bill is to carry out the Regulations in India, in the Dominions, and in the Crown Colonies prohibiting the export of the plumage of birds they desire to protect.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause does not affect the purpose of the Bill in any degree. The object of it is to prevent a consequence which is very distasteful to churchmen and nowadays, I think, distasteful to the House—the regulation by Parliament of matters which are strictly of a religious character. The policy of allowing the Church of England to settle strictly ecclesiastical questions seems to entail, as a consequence, the proposition that Parliament should not indirectly decide any question relating to the moral or religious discipline of the Church of England. The new Clause will exclude the indirect operation of an Act of Parliament by an express declaration that nothing in this Bill shall give to a person any right that he would not have had if the Bill had not been passed. The marriages which are made lawful by the Bill are contrary to the rule and discipline of the Church. The proper course is to leave that difficulty to be settled by the authorities of the Church and not to overrule them by Act of Parliament. It is most undesirable to complicate with modifications of the marriage law the exceedingly difficult question of the discipline of the Established Church.

I am afraid I cannot accept the new Clause. The object of the Bill,? understand, is to put the man who marries his deceased brother's widow on exactly the same footing as the Act of 1907 put the man who married his deceased wife's sister, but my Noble Friend's proposal would introduce a considerable difference; he would impose disabilities. I shall certainly feel compelled to vote against my Noble Friend.

1.0 P.M.

I hope the House will not accept the new Clause. There was a Clause put into the Deceased Wife's Sister Act, 1907, which specifically absolved any clergyman from any censure if he refused to officiate at marriages of that nature. It made it perfectly clear that persons who contracted such marriages were perfectly entitled to regard themselves as legally married, and in a well-known case it was decided that a clergyman of the Church of England could not repel from Holy Communion any such persons on the ground that they were notorious evil livers. That has been made perfectly clear by subsequent decisions with regard to a person marrying his deceased wife's sister. Now we have a new proposal to put a person marrying his brother's widow on exactly the same footing as the other class of persons I have referred to, but this Clause would subject them to the charge of being notorious evil livers if they went to receive Holy Communion. In fact, it precludes them from privileges which Parliament has allowed to persons availing of the Diseased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act, 1907, and which the Courts have decided those persons should have under the law.? am speaking in the presence of hon. and learned Members who know that this is the law. It is specifically stated in the headnote to the well-known case of Thompson and Dibdin:

"Section 1 of the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act, 1907, validates a marriage between a man and his deceased wife's sister for all purposes."

Then it states:

"Where, therefore, the Arches Court of Canterbury admonished a clergyman, who since the passing of the Act had repelled the parties to such a marriage from Holy Communion, by reason of their marriage and cohabitation, to refrain from so repelling them in future. Held, that a writ of prohibition ought not to be granted to restrain the Arches Court from proceeding further in the matter of the monition."

That is to say, if such parties come before a clergyman and ask him to marry them, he can stand aside and say, "No," but he cannot prevent them from being married in the church if they get another clergyman to perform the ceremony, and he cannot repel them from Communion. The headnote to the case of Banister and Thompson states:

"Lay members of the Church of England who have been baptised and confirmed and between whom a marriage legalised by the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act (1907) has been solemnised are not, either by reason of such marriage or by their afterwards living together as husband and wife, open and notorious evil livers within the rubric in the Communion Service, and neither the solemnisation of their marriage nor their subsequent cohabitation justifies the incumbent of the parish in which the parties reside in repelling them from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper."

This Clause, if it is passed, will prevent a man who marries his deceased brother's widow from taking part in Holy Communion, and, in fact, it will put a stigma upon him which the Courts of law and Parliament have refused to put upon persons in corresponding circumstances. I do not desire to go into the reasons for the Bill, because it has been thoroughly discussed and it is not on its merits that the Noble Lord takes his stand. What he does want to do is to take a certain action regarding people whom the State declares to be legally and properly married, and to put a stigma upon the class dealt with under this Bill.

I was almost horrified when I read for the first time this morning the Clause which the Noble Lord proposes to add to the Bill. I would submit to him that, whether or not in fact this Clause makes any real difference, the implication is so serious that any persons who might avail themselves of the Act, if and when it becomes law, could not possibly go into the Church, either to be married or for the Communion Service, without feeling that at any moment they might suffer from the brand which my hon. Friend has just shown would be imposed upon them. Never in my short career as a Member of Parliament have I felt so strongly about anything. There is such a lack of charity in the implication contained in these words that I beg and pray of the Noble Lord to take one of two courses, either to withdraw the Clause altogether because of the oposition which has been raised, or tell us quite frankly whether it is his view that such persons should or should not be admitted to these two rites, so that the matter can be reconsidered and fully debated on a future occasion because vital issues are involved.

I rise to support the Noble Lord's Amendment. I do so on the ground that I have never believed the civil power had any right to interfere with religious matters. The civil power to my mind has no right whatever to dictate to any religious body as to what that religious body should consider to be a marriage in accordance with its tenets and permissible to its members. We in this House should not for one moment think of dictating to the Roman Catholic Church as to whether they were to admit to their ordinances people who contracted marriage contrary to the principles of their Church. We should not attempt to dictate to the Jews or to the Nonconformists on the same matter, and I maintain we shall never come to a proper solution of our religious difficulties and the difficulties with regard to marriage while we attempt to dictate to the Church of England in this matter either.

It is the Established Church.

I know it is the Established Church. I am against its being an Established Church, and I am not prepared to support this interference with its religious affairs merely because it is an Established Church. I believe every change which goes to give the Church of England greater freedom, especially in matters of doctrine and ordinance, brings us nearer to the time when we shall have that which I have always been brought up to believe in as the true ideal—a free Church in a free State with no attempt on the part of the Church to dictate to the State and no attempt on the part of the State to dictate to the Church. Besides these matters of principle, I have another broad ground for supporting this Amendment. It is because hitherto progress, in what I conceive to be necessary reforms in the marriage system of this country, has been time after time, year after year, barred by the fact that all these reforms were sought to be imposed upon the Church of England, and therefore we had the opposition of the Church of England to every one of them. We shall continue to have the opposition of the Church of England to these reforms as long as we attempt to impose them upon the Church. We in this House are concerned with civil marriage only. We have no right, and no duty therefore, to interfere with religious marriage at all. We have to decide what we think are the limits within which the law will allow civil marriage, and allow amendments in the marriage system to bring it into accordance with the ideas of the great mass of lay people in this country, but if we go on to say, in addition, that when we have decided upon these changes in civil marriage we will impose them also upon this religious body and upon that religious body, then we shall go on doing what we have done for the last 20 or 30 years, that is, impeding the reform of the marriage system, which the country is crying out for, and which the country needs if we are not to have the marriage affairs of this country fall into a state of complete chaos. Therefore, both on the practical ground and on the theoretical ground, I support the Amendment.

If I understand rightly what my Noble Friend (Lord H. Cecil) proposes to do, I think there is an objection to the Amendment which has not yet been mentioned, and it is that the Amendment might seriously curtail the legitimate liberty of the individual clergyman. What my Noble Friend proposes is this. He told us that he wishes no door to be shut, so that the Church, under the powers which it has recently obtained from Parliament, should have the right to decide this matter for itself. At present there is no compulsion whatever one way or the other upon a clergyman of the Church of England with regard to these marriages. My hon. Friend (Sir J. Greig) told us just now that their liberty is expressly reserved in the Act of 1907. Those who think that these marriages are wholly unobjectionable are at liberty to give all the rites of the Church to those who have contracted these marriages; those who conscientiously think otherwise are entitled, apparently, to refuse certain rites of the Church to persons so married. My Noble Friend says, "I propose to leave this to be decided by the Church." That means that some Church body may pass a definite rule enjoining upon all the clergy of the Church that they shall not admit to the Sacrament persons so married, and that no clergyman, whether he thinks it unobjectionable or not, shall officiate at one of these marriages. I think that would be a very objectionable interference with the individual liberty of the clergyman in a matter which ought to be left entirely to his own discretion. Therefore, unless I have quite misinterpreted the meaning of my Noble Friend, I shall have to go into the Lobby against him.

This is a House of surprises. The first surprise I had this morning was to read the Amendment on the Paper which we are now discussing. It was a surprise to me to think it possible that such an Amendment could be seriously moved, in this day of advance towards religious liberty and freedom. It is to me an appalling thing to realise the possibility of a man who has entered into the holy bond of matrimony being left under even the possibility of fear that some cantankerous clergyman—and there are some cantankerous clergymen as well as Nonconformist ministers—should suddenly discover that he was married in this way, and when he presented himself for Holy Communion, be able to bar him from the Sacrament. Whether that is to be followed by legal action, and the clergyman found to be wrong, does not enter into the question, to my mind. The question is the unfair position in which it places these people.

The next surprise I got was the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. A. Williams). The first sentence he uttered was a shock, namely, that he was going to support this Amendment. He did explain his reasons for it, but he did not justify his action one bit, because it does not matter to us whether we believe in the Established Church or not, and it does not matter to us what other people may think; we have got to recognise the fact that the Established Church is here, and established by law, and that there are hundreds of thousands of people who are adherents of the Church, and believe in the Church, and are communicants of the Church, and follow the Church teachings, and to my mind it is an abhorrent thing to think that a Clause of this kind should be inserted, which would be a ban even upon those who are most faithful to their Church and its teaching. I therefore hope and trust the Amendment will be withdrawn, but if it is not, I can conscientiously vote against it. This is not the time to give a speech on the Bill, but I have letters people have sent to me from which it appears that the very people who have appealed for this Bill to be passed will be under the ban of the Church if this Amendment is carried to-day. If it is not withdrawn, I hope it will be completely defeated.

There is a certain amount of confusion of thought in the minds of hon. Members who oppose this Amendment. The Amendment leaves the law in respect of these Church services as it stands at this moment. I do not know offhand exactly what the law would be interpreted to be, but it leaves it whatever it is. The principle of the Amendment is that Parliament should not make any change in the use of the service nor in the administration of Holy Communion, but that they should be left to the Church authority. Is it really suggested that this House is the proper authority to decide who is to receive the Holy Communion, for instance Is it thought to be even seemly? The Article of the 39 Articles which carries the doctrine of Erastian supremacy as far as it has been carried expressly lays it down that the ministry of the Word and the Sacraments is not given to princes; and if not to princes, certainly not to Parliaments.

Is it not in the power and duty of this House to protect the citizens of this country from having implications put upon them and putting them into such dangerous positions as this Clause might put any man?

No implication could be made which cannot be made now. I do not seek to determine whether a man who makes a marriage of this kind is or is not fit to receive Holy Communion; I say it is for the bishops to determine. It certainly is not for this House to determine. Whatever the position is, so it would remain. If he is not fit, certainly this House cannot make him fit.

That would be the same if you did not have your Clause.

No. If this Clause is not passed a man has a Statutory right not to be repelled. It is not quite certain that he has a Statutory right to come, but it has been stated in respect of the principle of the Deceased Wife's Sister Act that he can no longer be repelled if Parliament has validated his marriage. Obviously, you cannot change the moral character of the person. Either these marriages are right or wrong. I think they are wrong. I do not conceal that I think a person who makes one of these marriages is wrong, and will find he is wrong in the ultimate judgment of Almighty God. But either he is right or he is wrong. Parliament cannot make an iota of difference one way or the other. Parliament cannot make a thing which is wrong right, or a thing which is right wrong. Who is to decide as to the discipline of the Church? Surely the bishops. I think on the whole the person ought to be admitted and warned of the danger he is incurring, but it is for the Church—the bishops—to decide. In all matters of the administration of the Communion the authority lies with the Bishop of the Diocese.

Does the Noble Lord mean to say that, under the existing law, a clergyman, who is entitled, under the Act of 1907, to use his own judgment, can be coerced by the bishop one way or the other?

No, I am not speaking of the Act of 1907 but of these new marriages. The Act of 1907 is law. Although I Bought to amend it, Mr. Speaker ruled that it was outside the scope of the Bill. Of course, I should wish both to be treated in the same way. But the thing is this. The Church is a corporate body. It has certain moral and religious teaching. It obviously is not seemly that any individual clergyman should decide about that for himself. According to the rule and order of the Church, this matter of the Holy Communion is left to the bishop to decide. The clergyman acts under the authority of the bishop, and no one can be repelled from Communion without appeal to the Bishop. Is not that the seemly way? Let us suppose that the Bishop decides against it. Then it is quite open to any layman of the Church of England—and only Churchmen could be affected by this matter—to make representations and raise the matter in lay assemblies, and try to get the Bishops to change their minds. Is not that the proper course? Why should Churchmen not be bound by the rules of the Church? Why come to this House, which is the least proper body to decide matters of ecclesiastical discipline? All I seek here is to shut out Parliament from interfering, and leave it to the Church. Anything more irreverent and scandalous than to allow this House to decide how clergymen should be ruled, I cannot conceive.

Is the Noble Lord not aware that under the Statute of Edward VI., Chapter I., which I think is the Statute which actually confirms the Book of Common Prayer, it is enacted that a clergyman shall not, without lawful cause, deny the Communion to any person who devoutly desires it, and what has been held as a lawful cause is where there has been an unlawful marriage?

And all that my Amendment would do is that it would remain a lawful cause until the Church settled that it was not a lawful cause. Does my hon. Friend really suggest that all the Statutes of the Tudors in respect of ecclesiastical matters are to be perpetually binding on our conscience?

That is the Statute which happens to confirm the Articles and the Prayer Book of the existing Established Church of England.

True, and Parliament passed laws in the same period which would subject any Nonconformist to severe penalties for not attending the Church. One is as reasonable as the other. You cannot appeal to the ecclesiastical legislation of the House of Tudor unless you go the whole hog, and cut off the ears of Nonconformists and burn refractory Socinians, and all the rest of it. If we are to have rational principles in religious matters, and, above all, adopt that which, I think, the House adopted with overwhelming consent, and which, I believe, almost every hon. Member supported when asked by Churchmen at the late election—the principle that Church matters should be decided by the Church—why do you depart from this principle in this case? Why is not the Church competent to decide these issues as much as any other church? Why are we in this one particular instance to interfere with the freedom of the Church? The laity can represent any grievance they feel. One would think that the bishops and clergy were going to act in a tyrannical manner in imposing penalties without consideration. Nothing is more remotely improbable. All I ask is that Parliament shall not interfere, but shall say, "No, this is a matter for the Church to decide." Is it, again, really seemly that a religious body, which teaches that a particular marriage is wrong, should be required to allow particular ministers, who disagree with the general teaching of the Church on that subject, to read a service to these people who are entering into a marriage which the Church holds to be wrong? Is not that an outrageous scandal? Here you have the Church professing to be a moral and religious teacher, which says, "These marriages are sanctioned by the State, but are not in our view right," and, at the same time, you allow a particular minister to appear in the House of God, and, standing before the Altar of God, to solemnise these marriages which the teaching of the Church says are wrong. Is that not a scandal, a profound mockery, and is it seemly that this House should impose that scandal upon a religious body?

The Noble Lord, who stigmatises it by these names, has not the right to say it is wrong.

I do not say they are wrong, but the Church of England teaches they are wrong.

I do not agree.

If my hon. and gallant Friend looks it up, he will find it is so. It has been the unbroken teaching of the Church for many centuries.

It was the Tudor Statute of Henry VIII which made marriage with a deceased wife's sister illegal. That was what it rested on.

All these marriages within degrees of affinity were always prohibited by the Church until the Pope, at the beginning of the sixteenth century, began to grant this dispensation. This is the very issue on which Henry VIII sought to divorce his wife; because he said he ought not to have been allowed to marry his deceased brother's wife. All the universities of Europe were consulted, and they all said he was quite right, and ought not to have done it, and that the dispensation of the Pope was invalid. But there is realty no doubt at all about the Church of England. It may be mistaken teaching, but it is not decent that you should use the religious services of a religious body to bless in the most solemn manner a relation which that religious body teaches to be immoral. They may be wrong, but, then, change the mind of the religious body and persuade them to teach that it is moral. But so long as they teach that a thing is wrong, and at the same time bless it in the most solemn way in the Church, I say that is scandalous. No one who has any sense of the truth of religion can doubt it is so. All I plead for, therefore, is the liberty of the Church that they should be allowed to decide these things for themselves. I shall not trouble the House to divide, but I would ask them to consider whether, having told their constituents that they would support the liberty of the Church, they can deny it liberty in this matter?

We ought to have no difficulty whatever in rejecting decisively the Amendment put forward by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University. I cannot congratulate him on his strange ally the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. A. Williams). The Noble Lord, as we all know, is an ardent supporter of the Church and the hon. Member who is for the moment his ally, is a Disestablisher. This unholy alliance between a great apostle of the Church and a great destroyer of the Church finds a common grievance, and it is to some of us a source of wonderment. I listened very carefully to the Noble Lord who is a great authority upon these matters. He warned us against confusion of thought—as he generally does—yet I have found the greatest difficulty in understanding whether this Clause that he proposes is meaningless or imposes any disability on the people who contract these new marriages. At one point of his speech I came to the conclusion that the Clause was meaningless because he said, "We are altering nothing, but leaving the law and everything else as it stands." If that be so what on earth is the good of putting it forward?

The law is unaltered except on this point.

There I find myself entirely unable to follow the Noble Lord in finding out in what respect the law, civil or ecclesiastical, which governs the rights and liberties of the subject will or will not be altered. Supposing the Noble Lord tells me, as I gather he does now, that this proposed Clause is a disabling one, that it imposes an ecclesiastical disability or some other disability, the Amendment appears to me to place upon the marriage of those persons, legalised by this Bill, a disability which is not placed upon persons who contract marriages legalised under the Act of 1907.

Yes.

And sanctions placing marriages in a different position to that sanctioned by the Act of 1907. I say we are not going back to any ecclesiastical or old-fashioned law, or to accept the position which the House definitely repudiated in 1907. The hon. Member for Consett seemed to have some regard for clergymen of the Church of England who are asked to perform these marriages and administer Holy Communion. He wished for protection, which any clergyman of the Church of England is entitled to, or ought to get, in regard to the Act of 1907. He is entirely protected. I hope the House will not allow this Amendment to be withdrawn, but will unanimously, with the possible exception of my Noble Friend and his strange ally, decide against it.

This is a matter of considerable importance, if not solemnity. There is one point upon which I should like to have a little enlightenment which seems to me to have been overlooked in the discussion. I am not going to deal with marriages in church, but rather with the other and more important question of the Holy Communion. The hon. Member for Buckingham dealt with this matter very warmly. I should like to ask this: Supposing there were a rector of a parish, perhaps a middle-aged man, who had taken Holy Orders long before the Act of 1907 or anything of the sort, and who really was convinced, with the Noble Lord on the front Opposition bench, that these marriages were immoral. He might be right or wrong, but he would be right in this respect, that he would have a perfect right to hold those views because when he was ordained that was the law of the Church. What will be his position? For 20 years, it may be, he has been preaching to his congregation and telling them that these marriages were wrong. Then if you propose to legalise these marriages you allow that these persons may receive Holy Communion, and by law he must administer it, or come under severe penalties—although for many years he has been preaching against this very thing.

That is not in the Bill.

I am not a lawyer, and I said so, and that is the advantage of having many hon. and learned Members in the House, but I really think we ought to have some enlightenment on this point. Will the clergyman be able to refuse Holy Communion to these people who are in that condition against which he has so long preached? I think, if he refuses, that he would be liable to some action at law. Is that right?

May I say that, of course, it is very difficult to decide and the subject is a deep one, but I never wished to prevent any man exercising his just convictions, be they what they may.

The serious part of it is that it is a question of conscience. Here you have the case of a man who has been ordained, has been appointed rector, and has been preaching what is the law of the Church. Then it is contended that he must administer the Holy Communion though he considers it a sin to do so, or he will be penalised for not doing so. This matter does require a little serious consideration when we are dealing with this very vital question of conscience. I hope no one will accuse me of taking a narrow view on this matter. I am not taking an ecclesiastical view. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) in his speech yesterday said he always agreed with sticking to a bargain. When these clergymen were ordained the Established Church held that these marriages were not moral. I ask now is it fair to break that bargain and say to a rector, "After you have been preaching this doctrine for 20 years, you are now compelled to administer the Holy Communion in these cases although you have preached against it all that time?" It is not a question whether one side is right or wrong, but when you are dealing with a question of this kind it is a matter of a man's conscience.

I do not think this is a question whether or not a layman has a conscience, but how much violence should be done to the conscience of the clerk in holy orders. Why, if a particular clergyman thinks it is contrary to his religion that he should celebrate a certain marriage, he should be put by Parliament under any compulsion, I cannot understand.

That is not so.

Then how much worse off is anybody who contracts one of these marriages after the acceptance of this new Clause? I do not think it is any use at this time of day on such a question as this to refer to musty precedents. I cannot see myself, although I confess I have not studied the question very closely, how much worse anybody will be if my Noble Friend's proposal is accepted. The new Clause only says that

"Nothing in this Act shall give to any person any right,

( a ) to have his marriage solemnised in church according to the form prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer."

That does not prevent a person being married with civil rites, nor is any person deprived of Holy Communion because a particular clergyman as a matter of conscience is not willing to give it in an individual case. It is difficult for me to understand how this would prejudice anybody under the Noble Lord's proposal. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) argued as if there was an obligation upon Parliament to make this Bill on all fours with the Act relating to the Deceased Wife's Sister Act. I cannot see that there is any such obligation. He argued that it would be right that this matter of marriage with a deceased wife's brother should be put on the same footing as marriage with a deceased wife's sister. If that is so, then the matter comes up for Parliament to deal with on its merits. Surely it is arguable that every departure from the law of marriage which has obtained for so many centuries should be regarded jealously, and in each case scrutinised and dealt with by Parliament upon its merits rather than take for granted that any precedent relating to one sex should be regarded as a precedent for dealing with a marriage of this sort in regard to the other sex. The argument is of an entirely different character, even allowing for the difference of sex. I was moved to intervene on account of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for York because he seemed to think that the whole House would be united in opposing the Noble Lord's proposal, and that it would only be supported by the Noble Lord himself and his unholy ally, as he called him, the Member for Consett (Mr. A. Williams). Under the circumstances I will support the Noble Lord's proposal, if he divides upon it, as a matter of conscience, in spite of the unsavoury associations attaching to that word during the War.

The hon. Member who last spoke has asked in what way anybody is prejudiced who is denied Holy Communion, having contracted a marriage under this Bill. The answer is that the only ground on which anybody can be refused Holy Communion is that he is a notorious evil liver. In this case the fact will be known in his neighbourhood that he is being refused Holy Communion on that ground. Therefore if this Amendment is passed it must inflict an injury upon anybody who has been refused on that ground. The real vice is that the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University and my hon. Friend (Sir R. Newman) have treated this question as if it were exclusively an ecclesiastical question. If it were, I certainly should not venture to speak at all, and I should bow to their far greater authority on the subject. Any Measure which deals with marriage and the treatment which people who contract legal marriages are to receive is, however, not only an ecclesiastical question, but also a social and constitutional question. If this new Clause be carried, it must have an effect upon the social life of the people, because it would involve a petty and ignoble persecution of those who take advantage of the facilities which Parliament is now giving to them. It sets them aside from the rest of the community as notorious evil livers who have no right whatever to the facilities which the Church gives either with regard to the sacraments or with regard to marriage. That is the social side of the question. Then there is the constitutional side. Is it right to enable any church to arrogate to itself the right of saying that that which the State says is a lawful marriage is still an invalid marriage or no marriage at all? If this new Clause be carried, then from the point of view of the Church those who marry under this Measure will be in the position of persons living—

Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the Roman Catholic Church says the same thing with regard to all divorced persons?

I do not think that has very much bearing upon this matter, because the object of this new Clause is to insist that the Church shall have a law for itself absolutely distinct from the law of the land.

Like any other religious body.

This new Clause insists that the Church, like any other religious body if you like, shall have the right to say that that which the State declares to be a valid marriage is an invalid marriage, and that those whom the State declares lawful issue are illegitimate issue.

They all have.

That is the in-evitable result, and surely it is against all sound principles of constitutional policy that Parliament, while legislating with one hand to make these marriages legal, should with the other stultify its proceedings by saying that any religious body can say that marriages legalised by this Measure are illegal, and that children born of such marriages are illegitimate.

In view of what has been said as to the Noble Lord's isolation in this matter, I should like to say that I am going to support him, and I think the reason is obvious from the speech to which we have just listened. The logical objection to this proposed Clause is the objection which has just been urged, that it is derogatory to the dignity of the State to allow anyone to teach a moral code different from that which is laid down by law. That appears to me to be a return to a rather dangerous doctrine of State persecution. I cannot conceive how anyone in this day and generation can set up such a claim on behalf of the State, that it should insist that its moral code in its law should be the only moral code which it should be lawful to teach. It is hopeless, of course, to expect that any Debate on any subject which touches the question of the Establishment should on either side be logical. That is unfortunately obvious from the nature of the case. I do think, however, as we heard a moment ago, that we should remember that which has been ignored in the course of this Debate, that there are a considerable number of Christians who are not members of the Church of England. No one, I think, except the hon. and gallant Member who spoke last, proposes to impose upon the minister of any other denomination the obligation to celebrate these marriages or to give the Holy Communion to people entering into these marriages. They only propose to impose the obligation on the Church of England, because it is the established Church. I think, from the broad point of view of policy, that the majority of those who now support the Establishment do not support it because the State is thereby enabled to exercise a control over the religion of its citizens, but because, as Christians themselves, they cannot, as citizens, say that the State should not recognise religion officially and formally in the form of an Establishment. That is the only reason, I fancy, why most of us support the Establishment at all, and I cannot be put into the position of saying that I support the Establishment for the purpose of imposing a particular line of conduct only and solely upon the ministers of a particular denomination.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 1.—(Marriage with a deceased brother's widow not to be void as a civil contract except in certain cases.)

(5) Section five of the said Act shall be read and construed as though at the end thereof there were inserted the words "and the word 'brother' shall include a brother of the half blood."

I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words

"The said Act, as amended by this Act, shall, so far as it relates to marriages between a man and his deceased brother's widow, have effect as though it had been passed at the date of the passing of this Act."

The object of this Amendment is to obviate an anomaly and a hardship which would arise if it were not passed. It is a technical matter, and I am afraid that it is a little difficult to understand without referring to the Act of 1907, which legalises a marriage with a deceased wife's sister. Section 1 of that Act provided that

"No marriage heretofore or hereafter contracted between a man and his deceased wife's sister"—

We have now added "between a man and a deceased brother's widow"—

"shall be void or voidable by reason only of affinity."

The words, "heretofore and hereafter" led to an anomalous position. A man might be married or have gone through a ceremony of marriage with his deceased wife's sister and then, discovering that the marriage was not valid, have ignored it and subsequently married another woman, that second marriage being absolutely valid and legal. As the Clause stood without any further proviso that legal marriage would have become a bigamous marriage, and the irregular marriage with the deceased wife's sister would have been legalised. To meet that point a proviso was inserted in the first Section of the Act of 1907 to the following effect:

"Provided also that in case, before the passing of this Act, any such marriage shall have been annulled"—

That is the kind of marriage with a deceased wife's sister which I have described—

"or either party thereto (after the marriage and during the life of the other) shall have lawfully married another, it shall be deemed to have become and to be void upon and after the day upon which it was so annulled, or upon which either party thereto lawfully married another as aforesaid."

Without the Amendment that I am now asking the House to accept, owing to this proviso which states that it has effect in cases which occurred before the passing of the Act—before August, 1907—there would be a gap between 1907 and the present year or the date upon which the present amended Bill comes into operation. The sole object of the Amendment is to cover that period and to regularise the position of people who have contracted the kind of marriage that I have described. The object of the Amendment is to prevent the marriage with a second woman which is really valid becoming a bigamous marriage. It is rather a complicated point, but I hope I have made it clear. It is a gap which was certainly not intended by the framers of the Measure, and if the Amendment is not passed there will be an opportunity for great injustice being committed.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very clear statement, but I want to know what is the position of any children that may have been born during the marriage of a man with his deceased brother's wife, and whose marriage has been put an end to by a second marriage to a person who is no relation of the brother. It is a question of legitimacy which I am afraid is not covered by the Clause.

I think the point is quite clear. What the hon. Member describes as a marriage is not a legal marriage, and therefore any children born of it cannot be considered legitimate.

I was afraid that was so. It is very hard on those children. If we are to make these marriages legal now the consequences to the children may be serious. The Bill does not provide for the case of unfortunate children who under it will be illegitimate, whereas they would have been legitimate if the Bill had not been passed.

Do I understand that if a man has been married to his deceased brother's wife in the last two years and has become the father of children by that woman, that union still goes on and that the children will be legitimised by this Bill in cases where the marriage has not been annulled?

I understand that the marriage is legalised and everything that necessarily follows from it covers the case of the children. The only effect of this Amendment is to bridge the period between the 20th August, 1907, and the date of the passing of the Bill we are now discussing. If this Amendment be not passed there will be a gap which may give rise to great difficulty, but if the Amendment be passed there is no question then that the marriage will have become valid.

I want the matter to be perfectly clear. There should be no doubt about it. There is some doubt in the minds of people who have honourably married a woman, and children have been begotten of the marriage. There should be no question as to the legitimacy of those children. If the marriage is legitimised then the children born of the marriage should also be legitimate children.

2.0 P.M.

There is unquestionably some doubt as to the effect of this Amendment where there has been, first of all, a marriage with a deceased brother's widow and where it has been discovered that it was not a legal marriage contract. It would not be right, by the retrospective effect of this Bill, to make an illegal marriage legal. I am not quite certain whether this is actually covered. What I would suggest is that as we are now at the last stage of this Measure, and we know exactly what the intention is, that is, to preserve these legitimate marriages where there are children, the House should accept this Amendment and when the Bill gets to another place there will be an opportunity to see what the Bill actually does and, if necessary, it will be possible to introduce other words which will make quite clear what is the intention of this House.

There is one point as to which I wish to ask a question, and I will put a concrete case. It is the case of a woman who married a sailor who was killed in action. She had two children by that sailor. She then married his brother, who was a soldier, and that brother was also killed in action. There was one child by that marriage. I want to know whether her position would be legalised by this Amendment. The Treasury, at the present moment, have withdrawn that widow's pension in respect of both husbands, because they say her second marriage was illegal, and she had been living in sin. Therefore they withdrew all her pensionable rights, although they still continue to pay the children's pension. Will this Bill legalise that woman's position, and will she be able to draw her pension? There are a great many cases of that kind, and I want to know exactly where we stand.

I hope that when this Bill goes to another place the Government will consider, not only the point which the Noble Lord (Viscount Curzon) has just raised, but the point with regard to the legitimacy of children which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. B. Denniss). It seems to me to be quite unnecessary to inflict upon the children of the intermediate marriage the stigma of illegitimacy, and I think it would be perfectly easy to insert in the Bill in another place words, which would be agreed to by everyone, providing that, although the intermediate marriage itself could not be recognised, because a third marriage had taken place, still, the children could be legitimised. I hope that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will consider that point, and that when the Bill goes to another place it will be put right.

I hope he will do nothing of the kind. I never heard such a suggestion as that a man's marriage is to be illegal, and yet his children are to be legitimate. Apparently some people in this House have gone mad about legitimising children. The sins of the fathers are visited on the children, and the idea of saying, that in the case of a man who contracts an illegal marriage his children shall remain legitimate is, to my mind, perfectly absurd.

It appears to me to be very strange that we should leave this matter to the other House. Why should we not settle it here? I am entirely in agreement with the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). Let me put a concrete case. A man goes through this irregular form of marriage and has three or four children. He then finds another lady who is willing to marry him in legal form. She knows nothing about these children, but nevertheless those children, if we pass this Amendment, are to be the legitimate children of that man.

No.

I understood it to be the case that these children would then be legitimised.

No, it is the exact opposite. I knew that the matter would prove to be difficult, and I am afraid I failed to make it clear. The two things, however, are quite distinct. The one case, where the man marries the widow of his deceased brother, without any further complications, is covered by Section 1 of the Act of 1907, as amended by this Bill. Section 1 of that Act runs as follows:

"Any marriage heretofore or hereafter contracted between a man and his deceased wife's sister …"

and now we are adding,

"or between a man and his deceased brother's widow."

That completely covers the case put by my Noble Friend (Viscount Curzon). If you validate the marriage you legitimise the children, and that is not affected by the Amendment which I am asking the House to accept. I am asking the House to deal with the question raised by the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) and by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. A. Williams). That is the case where a man, having established a union with his deceased brother's widow, has gone through a form of marriage, and possibly had children, and has subsequently discovered what he ought to have known at the time, namely, that he could not marry his deceased brother's widow. It was well known that the very anomaly which this Bill has been framed to remove did exist, and it has been a grievance for a large number of years. Therefore, the man must have known that if he had children of that union they would be illegitimate. It is not the object to legitimise children born of an irregular union if subsequently a man has contracted a perfectly valid and legitimate marriage with another woman. A man cannot have more than one wife at a time in this country, and if a man, in such circumstances, has married another woman, it stands to reason that her children cannot be legitimate as well as those of the irregular union. That is going much farther than the Bill was intended to go. It is a totally different subject. The only object of this Amendment is to put the case of the deceased brother's widow exactly on all fours with the case of the deceased wife's sister, neither more nor less. The anomaly that existed owing to the presence of the words "before the passing of this Act," in the proviso to Section 1 of the original Act, renders it necessary to make the addition proposed in this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (1).

This Amendment is part of a general scheme which carries out promises made in Committee to the effect that we would see that this Bill secured what it proposes to secure, namely, a revision and not merely an increase of the salaries of coroners. The omission of Sub-section (1) is necessary in order to effect that, because Sub-section (1) provides only for meeting an increase. We propose that provision shall be made for a revision of coroners' salaries, and that, should a decrease be found necessary, a decrease can be made. We go further, and provide that in the case both of the coroner and of the paying authority there shall be an appeal to the Home Secretary.

The question I have to put is, "That the words down to 'shall' ['shall be revised'] stand part of the Bill."

I do not want to say anything on this Amendment, because, as I understand it, it is practically a drafting Amendment which is moved in order to prepare the way for the Amendment of the hon. Baronet which will come later. I presume that you have put the Question in that form in order to protect my Amendment to substitute "may" for "shall."

I am afraid that I cannot agree to this Amendment, because I fear that it will interfere with the Home Office Amendment later.

This is the Amendment. It is necessary that we should get rid of these words in order to carry out the original intention.

I understood the Amendment was to leave out Sub-section (1), whereas this proposition is to leave out the words of the Sub-section down to "shall," but not the remainder of the Subsection.

I take it that does not preclude the omission of the remainder of the Sub-section subsequently.

It does not preclude it, but if the Amendment be carried, it is not possible for the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) to move his words. The whole Sub-section would go out.

What I mean is that I am in agreement with the hon. Member (Sir T. Bramsdon). I want to secure the omission eventually of the whole Sub- section. I take it the way you are putting the Question does not preclude my obtaining that.

No, on the contrary, if the Amendment, as proposed, be carried the Sub-section would go.

Amendment agreed to.

I desire to move to leave out Sub-section (2). I understood I should be entitled to move my first Amendment, in Clause 1, to leave out the word "shall" and to insert instead thereof the word "may."

That would have been so if the Under-Secretary's Amendment had been defeated, but as it was carried without a Division the whole Sub-section falls.

I am sorry there are so few hon. Members present because I want to draw attention to what is going on at present. First of all, this Bill has been moved by an hon. Member who is a coroner himself and who will receive benefit from the Bill. Letters have appeared in the newspapers, I think there is one in to-day from Mr. Swift MacNeill, who was a prominent Member of the House, saying that any vote by an hon. Member which has the direct effect of putting money into his pocket is a wrong vote. It has been said that in certain circumstances these votes are allowed. I brought this question to the notice of the hon. Gentleman two or three months ago and I understand he saw Mr. Speaker, who thought on the whole the vote might be allowed, but whether or not the vote is in accordance with the strict letter of the Orders of the House, it is utterly wrong—

I find, now that Sub-section (1) disappears, to omit Sub-section (2) would practically destroy the whole Bill and I do not think under the circumstances the Amendment is in order. Therefore I suggest that the right hon. Baronet should proceed with his other suggestion to substitute "may" for "shall."

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "shall" ["shall as soon as may be"], and to insert instead thereof the word "may."

I only found out by accident that the hon. Gentleman is a coroner. It is utterly wrong for an hon. Member to move a Bill which puts money into his own pocket.

This is appropriate to the Third Reading. It is quite in order to move to substitute "may" for "shall," but it is not in order to pursue an argument which no doubt will be perfectly legitimate on the Second or Third Reading.

The argument I am endeavouring to advance is in favour of leaving out "shall" and inserting "may." My point is that no direction should be given by this House to a local authority to do a certain thing. It is an utterly wrong thing for an hon. Member to ask the House to give definite and mandatory instructions to a local body to do something which will put money into his own pocket.

On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Baronet justified in making a personal attack upon me and saying I am personally interested in this Bill, when such is not the case? I asked Mr. Speaker about this, and he assured me that I was perfectly in order in bringing in the Bill and, according to Erskine May, a Member who represents a class is quite in order in bringing in a Bill and voting upon it. There are many cases, for instance, a railway—a Member might be a director of a railway—and Members have even voted for an increase in their salaries. The right hon. Baronet wrote me about the matter, and I thank him for his courtesy. I looked the matter up in Erskine May and I saw Mr. Speaker, and I afterwards communicated the result to the right hon. Baronet, and I am very much surprised that he should cast prejudice against the Bill by making a personal attack upon me which is absolutely unjustified.

I do not think the right hon. Baronet is out of order in his comment. I do not think a question of order arises. On the other hand, I am not prepared to rule that the hon. Gentleman (Sir T. Bramsdon) is out of order in bringing the Bill forward, much less, as I understand it, the suggestion that the Bill should not proceed.

I never said there was. I said I had communicated with the hon. Member and he told me he had communicated with Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Speaker had ruled that there was no objection on the strict rule of order to his bringing forward the Bill. All I was saying was that I did not think it was the right thing for an hon. Member to bring forward a Bill which actually put money into his own pocket. The hon. Member says he is the representative of a class—a representative, I presume, of the coroners' class. He is not a representative of the coroners' class. He is returned here by the electors of the country, who have nothing to do with coroners.

I am bringing in this Bill as past President of the Coroners Society for England and Wales. Therefore I do represent the class of coroners.

The hon. Gentleman was not returned to this House by the coroners. He was returned by the electors of his constituency. As to his allusion to railways, I should be the last person to vote for or bring in a Bill which increased the salaries of directors, and no Bill has ever been brought into the House which increases the salaries of directors, and no Bill has ever been brought in, for which I have voted, on railways or anything else, which would ever directly or indirectly put money into my own pocket. I ask the House to consider what it is we are asked to do. At a moment when everyone's salary is being reduced, when the working man is asked to take lower wages and Members representing the Labour party are being asked to use their influence to secure lower wages, the House is being asked, not to take money out of the pockets of the taxpayers even, but to order local authorities to pay increased salaries to a certain class of individual. Surely the people to judge whether coroners should receive increased reuneration are the local authorities and the ratepayers. The local authorities have been complaining for a very considerable time that they have had burdens placed upon them by this House, and they have been rightly complaining. We all know how heavy is the burden of the rates, and if this House passes now, in face of the tremendous burden which is put upon ratepayers and taxpayers, and in view of the fact that in many places the rates are 15s. or 16s. in the £, a Bill which increases the remuneration of coroners, it will be entirely wrong. I sincerely trust that hon. Members will unite with me in supporting this Amendment and in killing the Bill. The Bill had no business to have been brought in, irrespective of the question about the hon. Member who brought it in. At this moment of financial stress it is very improper to ask this House to put an additional burden upon the ratepayers, a burden which the local authorities do not want. I have had many communications from local authorities asking me to oppose this Bill. In many cases they tell me that they have already increased the salary of the coroner. Power is to be given in this Bill for an appeal to the Home Secretary. What has the Home Office to do with it? The local authority ought to be the master in its own place, and it ought not to be told that it must increase the salary of one of its officials. I shall divide on this Amendment, and I trust the House will support me.

I do not know whether the Government supports this Bill, but I hope they do not. I am astonished that it should be in order for a private Member to bring in a Bill which compels local authorities to raise the fees of coroners by not less than 50 per cent. In all the years that I have been in this House I have never heard of a more astonishing proposition. It comes as a shock to me. I have only just read the Bill, and I cannot see my way to support such a proposition. I understand that there was an Act passed in 1860, under which the coroner's salary was to be revised every five years. I do not know whether that is so or not. I suppose that the five-year period varies according to the date of the appointment. This Bill has been brought in to enable the coroner's salary or fees to be increased, although the five-year period has not arrived. If the Bill stopped there, one might reasonably support it. If in a proper case under existing circumstances the coroner's fees or salary are so insufficient as to be unjust, the local authorities might be allowed to reconsider them without waiting for the end of the five years. The Bill does nothing of the kind. It says that every local authority shall raise the fee of every coroner by 50 per cent. at once.

That only applies to borough coroners.

It is immaterial whether it applies to borough coroners or county coroners. I will confine my remarks to the case of boroughs. I represent a borough, and I very much object, without the consent of the borough council, to vote for a Bill which says that they shall be told, at the instance of a private Member in a private Member's Bill, that they are at once to raise their coroner's salary, although they may have raised it the other day, by 50 per cent. at least, and as much more as they please. The House would bring a great deal more odium upon itself than it is incurring even at the present time, if it dared to pass that. I hope the Government are not supporting the Bill and that the Government Whips will not be put on. The House will lose its self-respect if it passes such a Measure. The right hon. Baronet was rather hard on my hon. Friend in what he said as to his position in bringing in the Bill; but on the other hand, no terms are too strong to condemn the Bill. To attempt to pass on a Friday afternoon an apparently insignificant Bill, which probably nobody has noticed or in which they have not taken an interest; a Bill of such a radical character, imposing upon every borough in the Kingdom the liability to increase their payments to coroners by at least 50 per cent., and to increase the rates accordingly, is altogether wrong.

The rates in the boroughs are high enough. The Bill provides that if a coroner is dissatisfied with the amount to which his salary is increased, he can appeal to the Home Office, and the Home Secretary shall have the right to override the opinion of the borough council and to set aside the state of the rateable value and of the rates existing at the time. It is a most objectionable proposal. If we could do away with all war bonuses and start afresh and have a proper revision of salaries, and put them on a different basis, that would be a different matter. If this is a war bonus, that is the strongest possible reason for rejecting the Bill. Under this Bill a coroner will be able to say, "You must raise my salary by 50 per cent at least, but I ask for more, and if you do not give it I shall appeal to the Home Secretary." I condemn the whole principle of the Bill, the manner in which it is brought in, and its object.

I am sure the House will be good enough to listen the Home Office (Sir J. Baird) provides as regards salaries that they may not only be increased but diminished. Therefore he wants to be fair, and I am prepared to agree to that. Then my hon. Friend has got the further Clause to the effect that if after the expiration of a year the circumstances shall be altered, then it shall be in the power of the paying authority to apply to the Home Office for a revision so that we might get down to normal times again.

The whole tenor of this Bill is temporary. It is meant to do justice to coroners who are very badly paid and to whom something like justice should be done. A very strong departmental committee appointed in 1909, of which I was a member, recommended that there should be an improvement in the pay and conditions of coroners, and had Parliament been able to find time a Bill founded on that report would have been the result; but, owing to the tremendous amount of Parliamentary work which has gone on from time to time, that Bill has not been introduced. I suggest that this is a fair suggestion. Coroners, with High Court judges, are the only officers whose case has not been considered. There are some cases, though they are not general, in which the conditions of coroners' service have improved during the last year or two. There cannot be any revision with a view to an extension of those, but there may be a revision with the view to a diminution. The whole tenor of this Bill and of the Amendment of my hon. Friend is that there shall be justice done to coroners. I do not come here on my own behalf. Nothing could be more invidious or more distasteful, but the Coroners' Society ask for some consideration, and to whom would they appeal more than to a man who has been past President of the Society?

The hon. Gentleman has told us the very interesting fact that a coroner in a county borough is paid by fees. Are there any allowances additional to these fees?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for asking that question. There are no allowances. The £1 6s. 8d. includes stationery, clerk's fees, postage, and any other incidentals that may be necessary.

The representations which I have received from certain friends of mine who are coroners left me under the impression that the proposals of this Bill were to allow these local authorities who desire to do so to increase the remuneration of the coroner, and that without the sanction of Parliament, however much they wanted to increase the remuneration of the coroner at present, they were not able to do so. To that I assent. The coroner is not overpaid at present, and he has not only to pay out of his fees a very much increased remuneration to his staff, but he has got to pay the cost of stationery and postage and the increased rates on his office as well as the increased cost of petrol, or hire of conveyances to get to the various parts of the districts for which he is coroner. If, therefore, the coroners' fees cannot be increased by the local authorities without the sanction of Parliament, I support the Bill, but I feel that I must vote for the Amendment to insert "may" instead of "shall" because of the principle of not forcing upon the local authorities payments which they are unwilling to make. In voting for the Amendment I am not voting to wreck the Bill or prevent local authorities from doing that which at present they cannot do without the Bill, but on the general principle I object to Parliament forcing local authorities to make payments.

It does not seem to me that we are doing what has been suggested by the last speaker, namely, by the action of this House forcing upon local authorities an increase in the salary of the county coroners. For an increase in fees I think a good case has been made out. If the fee is statutory it can be revised only by statute, unless fees are taken out of the Statute altogether. It has been said that the fee was fixed in 1887, and has not since been revised, and if the coroner has to include all expenses within the fees a good case seems to have been made out for a revision up to 50 per cent. With regard to salaries, I should be as much against the Bill as the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) if, as he suggested, I think inadvertently, there was a direction to the county authorities that they must and shall increase the coroners' salaries. But it is not so. The Bill says that the authorities shall consider the matter and that they are to take into consideration the rise in the cost of living and so on. I am reading the Bill with the Amendments put into it. The authorities are also to have regard to all other relevant circumstances of the case. If they could urge, as they might do, that they have recently revised the salaries in a satisfactory way, or if the work had so decreased that the salary fixed some years ago was still adequate, no increase would have to be made. In any case if there is any disagreement, if they hold that the present is not the time to make a charge on the county rates, they would be able to follow that course and there would be no increased salary forced upon them by the Bill. The matter would then stand referred to the Secretary of State for his decision.

May I explain? If my Amendment is not carried, and if the Amendment of the Under-Secretary is carried, the Sub-section will read:

"Every authority charged with the payment of a coroner's remuneration shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, proceed to revise the rate of the salaries or of the fees, as the case may be, payable to the coroner, and in so doing shall have regard to the increase which has taken place since the outbreak of the War in the cost of living and travelling and in other expenditure necessarily incurred by coroners in the performance of their duties. Provided that as respects fees the amount thereof shall in every case be revised so as to be increased by not less than 50 per centum."

So that the result will be that whatever they may think the authorities must increase the salary by not less than 50 per cent.

In the case of fees, the matter being statutory, it is proposed to revise it by statute. I think a case has been made out for an increase of fees. But where payment is by salary no increase is imposed by this House on the county authorities. I do not think it can be argued that with regard to salaries this Bill imposes the duty of making an increased charge on the county rate.

Having read the Statute I think that probably the last speaker is right, but he seemed to forget that in every case the coroner can appeal to the Home Secretary, and there is not the slightest doubt that if the revision happened to be downward or if no revision was made, an appeal would at once be made to the Home Secretary. I object very strongly to the Home Office fixing the salaries of the officials of local authorities. For that reason I shall feel bound to support the Amendment. May I say that I think the introducer of this Bill ought to be a little careful as to the way he votes on this matter? I would remind him to look at the Standing Orders, because I think he might make himself liable to considerable penalties if interested as a member of a class or as an individual—

I am afraid the hon. and learned Gentleman was not in the House when this matter was debated and, as I understood, satisfactorily settled.

I do not want to press the point upon the hon. Gentleman.

I did not attempt to rule as to whether the hon. Gentleman might or might not incur any penalties. I should be very sorry if the hon. Gentleman took anything I said as encouraging him to get into a position which might be a danger to himself.

I think there is some misunderstanding in regard to the intervention of the Home Office. There is already a right of appeal, which operates in the case of the quinquennial revision of salaries. Let me say something as to the attitude of the Home Office to this Measure. Although coroners are paid by the local authorities they are judicial officials, and to that extent they are connected with the Home Office. They have come to us and pointed out that there has been no alteration in their fees, in the cases where they are paid by fees, since the year 1887. I do not think it would be easy to substantiate the view that a payment which was adequate in 1887 is adequate for similar services to-day. Yet the fees cannot be increased unless this House increases them. It is not a question of the local authorities doing it, for they have not the power to increase fees. Our attitude to the coroners was that though we were not able, in view of the parliamentary situation and the business to be got through, to bring in a Bill dealing with their case, yet it appeared to us that they had a claim for consideration. They are the only people analogous to civil servants who have not had any increase of salary since the War, except in the case of the local authorities which, owing to the operation of the quinquennial period, have revised the salaries of coroners. The Amendment which I shall move later, if this Amendment be not carried, will provide that any increase in salary which may have been granted shall be taken into account in the revision which would take place if the Bill be passed with my Amendment.

I would draw attention to the latter half of Sub-section 2 which the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) did not read when he quoted my Amendment. It has been suggested that the local authorities will be obliged to increase the salaries. This is a misconception. Under the existing laws the local authorities have only power to revise the salary once in every five years, and that may operate very unfairly in the case of many men. The Bill provides for a new revision, not necessarily in the direction of increasing the salaries, but in order that in considering whether an increase or a decrease shall be decided upon, regard shall be had to the cost of living and to travelling and other expenses necessarily incurred by coroners. Under the Statute by which this quinquennial revision is now held the local authorities have no power to take these matters into consideration, but the revision has to have regard to the number of inquests held, and the man's salary therefore depends upon that, and the cost of living and the other expenses do not come into consideration at all. The Bill provides that all these relevant circumstances shall be taken into account, and that is the point which my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London appears to have overlooked.

I did not read the remaining words of Sub-section (2) because I thought I had already spoken on them. The remaining words are as follows:

"If the authority and the coroner fail to agree as to the amount at which the salary or fees shall be fixed, the Secretary of State shall, on the application of the authority or the coroner, determine the amount."

That is what I am objecting to.

That is nothing new. There is already an appeal to the Secretary of State.

Why have the Bill at all?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for asking that. We have supported this Bill, subject to amendment, for two reasons. First, there has been no revision of the scale and there is no power to revise the scale unless the House decides it should be revised; and secondly, the revision of salaries can only take place once in every five years. It having been brought to our notice that the cases of a great many coroners are extremely hard, we said if a private Bill was brought in we should favourably consider it, provided it was amended in such a way as to meet what we considered necessary conditions. A certain number of Amendments were carried in Committee, and the main point raised upstairs was that, while there was no difficulty or objection as to having a revision, it should be a revision and not an increase. It was pointed out that it would be wrong to seek to impose on local authorities the duty of increasing salaries or fees. We said that the revision must be a revision in the real sense of the word, enabling the scale of salaries to be revised either upwards or downwards. That was one point made upstairs which I am endeavouring to meet by the Amendment on the Paper. Another point was made as to whether this was to be a temporary Measure, and not a permanent Measure. I have a further Amendment on the Paper in regard to this, which provides that if at any time after the expiration of one year from the passing of the Act, it appears to the Secretary of State that a substantial reduction in such cost of expenditure has taken place since the date on which the remuneration of any coroner was revised, the Secretary of State may, on the application of the authority charged with the payment of the remuneration, authorise the authority to make a further revision. We have in this attempted to meet the legitimate demands for safeguards which were brought forward upstairs. I hope the House will agree that there should be a less rigid machinery for revising the salaries than that which exists at the present time—for that is what the proposal amounts to—and that they will not insist on inserting the word "may" instead of "shall" because with the proviso contained in the subsequent Amendment I have indicated, I venture to think the interests of the ratepayers are amply safeguarded and the local authorities have it in their power either to increase or diminish the salaries as they may think desirable. We are not creating any new right or conferring any new advantage. A certain number of hon. Members appear to have considered the Bill apart from the Amendments, but these Amendments greatly alter the aspect of it. The Bill as originally produced was one we were not prepared to accept as imposing an obligation on the local authorities to increase the fees, and all we say now is that some consideration should be had for those men who have not had their remuneration revised for 38 years. Conditions have altered very much in that time, and we consider the time has come when a definite revision should be undertaken, but we say the present machinery for revising is too rigid having regard to the exceptional conditions in which we find ourselves. Let me again remind the House that these men have had no increase whatever since the commencement of the War despite the increase in the cost of living, and that they are on an analogy with civil servants who have had substantial increases. I hope the House will hesitate before refusing a reasonable opportunity for having these salaries revised.

3.0 P.M.

Probably the House will agree that a case has been made out for the revision of coroners' fees which are fixed by Statute, and if that were enacted in a separate Clause, I think there would be little difficulty in getting it through the House, but the Clause does not confine itself to a revision of fees. As drafted, it is a mandatory Clause to compel the local authorities, whatever their opinions on this matter may be, whatever the particular circumstances, or however recently the salaries may have been reconsidered or raised, to proceed to a revision of the coroners' salaries. We should certainly improve the Clause by the safeguards proposed by the Government, but as the Clause stands it is mandatory on the local authorities to proceed to a revision, and what does that mean? If the local authorities think they are not prepared to revise these salaries, the remaining machinery is set in motion, and the officers can proceed to appeal to the Home Secretary and have a revision made by the Home Office. I strongly object to this kind of compulsion on the local authorities, and if this Clause were made permissive, as the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) proposes, this objection would be removed. The Clause has two vices, that it compels the local authorities, whether they will or not, to proceed to a revision, and that it superimposes upon their decision an appeal to the Home Office in a matter which is essentially a matter which should be arranged locally. After all, these officials are appointed, and if they do not like their appointments they are usually gentlemen who have other sources of income, and somebody else may be asked to carry on their duties. There is after all in these things a law of supply and demand, and I do not think it right to compel local authorities to take action which may not be necessary and which may be entirely against their judgment. I am willing to vote for the Clause if the right hon. Baronet's Amendment is inserted.

I rise to support the Bill, and I do not think it matters much whether the word "may" or the word "shall" is in the Clause, because if we alter the word to "may," it is hardly conceivable that any local authority, knowing that the coroners' salaries have been stationary for so many years, would

not reconsider the salaries and deal with them accordingly; but if the Clause remains as it is, and mandatory, it will then not be open to them to refuse to take into consideration these cases. I am greatly surprised to hear from the hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Baird) that not since 1887 have coroners' fees been raised, but in regard to county coroners, the quinquennial period, I suppose, has been taken advantage of, and if so, there is all the stronger case for this Bill, that they have not seen their way to revise the county coroners' salaries, and more particularly during the War. Other civil servants and others in different enterprises have had their salaries revised, and the cost of living has duly been taken into account, and therefore I think there is the strongest case for a Bill of this kind, and I am surprised it has not been brought in before. Whether we retain the word "shall" or alter it to "may" does not make much difference. In either case I support the Bill.

Question put, "That the word 'shall' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 49; Noes, 74.

Proposed word there inserted in the Bill.

I beg to move, in Sub section (2), to leave out the word "aforesaid" ["the increase aforesaid"].

This Amendment speaks for itself, and I hope the House will see fit to insert it. It seems to me to be necessary from the drafting point of view. We have eliminated Sub-section (1), which embodies what is contained in my Amendment which follows this, and which comes in better here, and, I think, is better expressed. It gives reasons why there should be a revision. We have now decided it is to be optional on the local authorities, and I hope the House will consider my Amendment simply as a drafting one.

I have no objection to this, because, as I understand, it is more or less of a drafting Amendment; but my hon. Friend, I think, will agree that if we have these words inserted, we shall have to leave out the words "and if the authority and the coroner fail to agree," because that is consequential on my Amendment, which makes it permissive.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In Sub section (2), after the word "increase" ["the increase aforesaid"], insert the words

"which has taken place since the outbreak of the War in the cost of living and travelling and in other expenditure necessarily incurred by coroners in the performance of their duties."—[ Sir J. Baird. ]

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words

"and if the authority and the coroner fail to agree as to the amount at which the salary or fees should be fixed the Secretary of State shall, on the application of the authority or the coroner, determine the amount, having regard to the increase and other circumstances aforesaid."

This is consequential on the Amendment which was carried just now, which made it permissive.

I should hesitate to differ from my right hon. Friend as to what is consequential and what is not consequential, but I should not have thought this Amendment was consequential. If it be carried, it takes away a right which the coroner now possesses. That is surely not consequential. My right hon. Friend must have overlooked that. Let me be quite frank. These words retain the right of appeal now possessed by the coroners who draw salaries, and they confirm the right of appeal of coroners who are paid by fees. That is the new point—the appeal is extended. The effect of the carrying of the proposal of my right hon. Friend would be to remove the right of appeal from the men who have had it ever since they have held office. I cannot believe that that is his object. We desire simply to leave things as they are so far as the salaried men are concerned, but the Bill does confer upon coroners who are paid by fees the same right as the similar class of men who are paid by salary. I do not think there is any grave anomaly in that. I hope the right hon. Baronet will not press his Amendment.

May I point out that if these words are not left out the Amendment we have just carried falls to the ground? The Sub-section will then read:

"Every authority charged with the payment of a coroner's remuneration may, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, proceed to revise the rate of the salary or of the fees, as the case may be, payable to the coroner, and in so doing shall have regard to the increase which has taken place since the outbreak of the War in the cost of living and travelling and in other expenditure necessarily incurred by coroners in the performance of their duties … and if the authority and the coroner fail to agree as to the amount at which the salary or fees should be fixed, the Secretary of State shall, on the application of the authority or the coroner, determine the amount, having regard to the increase and other circumstances aforesaid."

What we have just decided—I venture to submit on a point of Order that I am correct—is that the local authority "may" have the discretion and the right to do this, but that they shall not be compelled to do so by the Bill. Unless my Amendment be carried the vote which the House has just given is rendered null and void, because the local authority might say: "We do not intend to revise the salary of our coroner," who can then appeal to the Home Office, and the Home Office will give a decision, and it will not be that of the local authority. It is therefore absolutely essential that the House should pass this Amendment as consequential on something the House has already decided.

May I suggest that the appeal can only take place in the event of the salaries having been revised. If the salary is not revised there is no appeal.

I am sorry to interrupt, but I beg to point out that this does not take away the right of appeal by the coroner. It does not repeal or alter any Act of Parliament which is in existence at present. All it does is to say that in a new Act of Parliament, and under new circumstances, the local authority "may" do something. Any right which coroners have at the present time is not interfered with if my Amendment is carried. All the Amendment does is to confirm the present position.

If my hon. Friend who represents the Home Office thinks that the Home Office will carry out what, he argues, is contained in the Bill he will have to add further words to make the matter clear. The House has clearly decided that the local authority may or may not, at its own discretion, revise the salaries. If he contends, as he probably may do, that in case they do not revise the salaries the appeal will not lie, you require words put in front of the words now being considered, to make it clear that if the salary or fees are revised, as the case may be, and the local authority and the officer fail to agree, the decision—after revision—can be appealed against.

I think it has been explained to the House that the coroners in the counties have a quinquennial revision of their salaries. This Bill proposes that there shall be an immediate revision of salary if, of course, it passes into law. Under the existing law coroners, if they find that things are not satisfactory, have the right of appeal to the Home Office, and the local authority has a similar appeal. We want to guard against being unfair in this rearrangement.

If the hon. Gentleman who represents the Home Office reads the words again he will find that the result will be just the contrary of what he expressed. He stated that the words in question proposed to be left out only became applicable if there was a revision. It is just the contrary, because the words are

"if the authority and the coroner fail to agree as to amount,"

then there is an appeal to the Home Secretary. Where there is no revision appeal to the Home Office becomes operative. As I understand the feeling of the House, as the result of the last Division, it is that the whole procedure of revision is to be permissive. The second point is that there is a great objection in forcing upon local authorities a decision of the Home Office as to the amount of salary to be paid to the coroner. It is extremely desirable that these words should be left out. It is desirable in the interests of the coroners themselves, because as the Bill now stands, if the local authority are anxious to consider the question of the revision of the salary of the coroner, that authority will look at this Bill if these words are left in and say: "We cannot take any steps towards what we desire without having in front the prospect of an appeal to the Home Office." Necessarily it would follow that the local authority would dislike the salary fixed by the Home Office. The majority of the House, too, dislikes that idea. At any rate, the local authorities are anxious to keep these matters in their own hands, and, for the most part, they are quite willing to do what is right and fair in any grievance which may exist. The local authorities will be very anxious to act upon this Bill, and will the more readily act upon it if these words will be left out. Both from the point of view of expediency, and in order to carry out the wish of the House expressed by the last Division, I think it is necessary and desirable that these words should be left out.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put and negatived.

I desire to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "fifty" and to insert instead thereof the word "five."

As I understand it, under the Act of Parliament in all boroughs the coroners are paid by fees. The amount of the fee is specified in the Act of Parliament, and I believe it is £1 6s. 8d. It is necessary that in this Bill some amount ought to be fixed. We have already decided that it shall be in the discretion of the borough authority to increase or not to increase the fees of the coroner, and the Sub-section as it is would compel them, whether they liked it or not, to increase those fees 50 per cent. That would negative all the Committee have done in the previous Division and the last Amendment which was carried without a Division.

It may be for technical reasons necessary that the increase should be specified. If you put in 50 it cannot be less. If you put in five you can give the borough municipal authority power to make an increase of anything under 50 or over 50, thus leaving it to their absolute discretion. If you leave it at 50 we are in fact stultifying our previous Amendment. If we put in five then they may make it 10, 15, 20, or 50, and this will be entirely at the discretion of the local authority.

May I point out, Mr. Speaker, before my hon. Friend moves his Amendment, that after the two Amendments which have been carried the following three lines should be omitted:

"Provided that, as respects fees, the amount thereof shall in every case be revised so as to be increased by not less than 50 per centum."

Otherwise they render nugatory the decision of the House. I admit it is difficult under the circumstances to foresee everything, but the leaving out of these lines is consequential upon the decision just come to by the House.

The words are in the Bill, and the hon. Member for Oldham is in possession. Somebody ought to move to leave out those words.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words

"Provided that, as respects fees, the amount thereof shall in every case be revised so as to be increased by not less than 50 per centum."

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

This Bill is based upon the principles of equity and justice. It states, in the first place, that

"In order to meet the increase which has taken place since the outbreak of the War in the cost of living and travelling and in other expenditure necessarily incurred by coroners, the remuneration payable to coroners shall be revised in accordance with the following provisions of this Section."

It states further:

"Provided that, as respects fees, the amount thereof shall in every case be revised so as to be increased by not less than 50 per centum."

My object in rising is to call attention to the fact that this very just and righteous principle, which I take it the House is about to sanction, has been denied to the miners of this country. It may seem rather ironical, but it is a fact that miners have to die so that coroners may live. During the last 10 years there have been no less than 12,000 inquests held on the bodies of miners, and it seems to me strange that the House should be so very careful to see that the coroners who hold the inquests on the bodies of the miners should have fees by which they can live while at the same time the Government deliberately take away from the miners this very same principle as conceded during the War in the shape of a War wage. That which is proposed to be given to coroners is to be taken away from all the workers of this country. The same fate as has overtaken the miners is being prepared for the agricultural labourers, and the engineers and all the other workers of the country are threatened with the same thing. If this House is to legislate, it should legislate righteously and equitably for all the people of the country. We have here a piece of down-right class legislation. The House which has been denouncing class legislation and increased expenditure is now engaged in increasing the fees of men who are very much better able to meet the cost of living than the miners and other workers. Therefore, while agreeing with the righteousness and with the principles of this Bill, I say that the same principles of equity and justice should be meted out to all the other workers of the country. I notice that coroners only are mentioned. No- thing is said about the minor officials or the jurymen who have to give their time at very much less remuneration than the coroners receive. Therefore, while agreeing with the principle of the Bill, I say that its application is very unjust to other portions of the community.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

About a year ago—to be exact, in April last year—the House very kindly granted me its patience for a long time while I introduced a Bill which to all intents and purposes was the same as the Bill which I now ask it to read a Second time. I explained the working of the Bill then at such length and carried the Second Reading after we had debated it for five hours, that I shall best study the convenience of the House if to-day I make a very short speech indeed. If hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House who opposed me last year will recall the Debate to their memories, they will remember the object and working of the Bill. I do not propose therefore to deal with the Clauses of the Bill at any length, but to confine myself to a speech of about six or seven minutes. In order that there may be no doubt about the object of the Bill, I will just read this: the shipping industry, and the gas, water, and lighting supply industries—that is to say, the vital services of the nation. There is another alteration, to Clause 3, it does not amount to very much; the altered composition of the Committee which is to be constituted as the Trade Union Ballot Regulation Committee. The numbers are the same, but the complexion is a little more certainly trade union. The committee is to consist of the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Labour, the Registrar of Friendly Societies—those three are independent gentleman—and the remaining four are to be specifically trade union officials and leaders, namely, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour party, the Chairman of the Trade Union Congress, and two other persons appointed by the Trade Union Congress at its annual meeting.

In order to be perfectly candid with the House, I must draw attention to another very trivial alteration in the present Bill, namely, that the ballot papers for distribution shall be issued not later than 3 days after the receipt of the notice from the trade union of an intention to take a ballot. It was a longer period, I think, in the other Bill. Except for those alterations, the Bill is practically the same as that which I had the privilege of carrying on Second Reading a year ago. Whatever I may have said in support of the Bill last year has been strengthened by the unhappy dispute through which we are now passing. The miners to-day are engaged upon a ballot as secret as may be possible. If a ballot of that kind had been taken before the trouble began, I at least am of the opinion that perhaps we might have avoided the misery which has resulted from the stoppage in the mining industry. At any rate it would have afforded a chance of peace. People objected to this Bill last year on the ground that it dealt with domestic concerns. I take the strongest objection to such an argument. I will not use the words "strike" or "lock-out," but the strife now going on is not a domestic concern; it is a national calamity.

Do the owners ballot their shareholders before they lock out the men?

I need not discuss that. I can only say that the employers are perfectly willing to take a ballot before they lock their people out, in that unhappy contingency.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being present—

I hope that the public and the general body of Trade Unionists in this country will take notice of the fact that a well-known trade union leader in this House attempted to have the House counted out when a matter like this was under discussion. I take it it is an indication that some of the Labour Members are afraid to face the issue. I have received many letters in support of this Bill. They have come unsolicited, among them a letter from a working woman in Glasgow who takes the same view of the Labour leaders as I have just indicated. She says:

"What right have the Labour leaders to try and block this Bill? We want it, and we shall have it sooner or later. We will let them know what we think."

A Russian princess!

4.0 P.M.

I fail to understand the meaning or sense of the interruption. Some hon. Members told us that the Bill was inexpedient and that it will cause irritation. To whom will it cause irritation and how will it cause it, seeing that it provides one of the finest elements of democratic government—freedom of conscience and freedom of action by secrecy of the ballot, the things which our fathers struggled for for years. [An HON. MEMBER: "They want to imitate the Bolsheviks!"] With regard to the claim that the Bill is inexpedient, I suggest that that argument does not hold water and that the answer is to be found in the Report of the Conference of Transport Workers about the Triple Alliance strike proceedings. Evidently certain leaders endeavoured to stampede the rank and file of the workers in to a strike which the best element among the workers did not want. One can see that on reading the report of the transport strike proceedings, and if this proposed trade union ballot had been in existence there would have been no opportunity for those who were engaged in fomenting the agitation to tell the miners that the Triple Alliance would come to their support or to en- deavour to upset the whole industrial organisation of the country. I will ask only one more question and that is what are the Labour leaders afraid of? Why do they try to count out the House? Why do they oppose the Bill? The public will draw its own conclusions as to the cause of the opposition of Labour to this proposal. I base my advocacy of this Bill on one single object, and that is this strife in industry.

Lock-outs!

I did not say "strikes," I said this strife. I am not dealing with the coal dispute at the moment.

We are not afraid of it.

What I want to say is that this unhappy strife in industry, whether called lock-outs or strikes, they are equally undesirable, ought to be rendered less possible than it is at this moment. The way to do that is to assist the steady backbone of trade unionism to express its opinion in the ballot, without fear of that intimidation which at the moment seems to prevent many voting, as I am sure they would vote, or even voting at all. This is not a domestic question; the disputes which have developed in the last few years have become of national importance. For that reason I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.

I beg to second the Motion. The evils which this Bill is trying to redress are many and manifest, but the redress of them is not quite so simple a matter as many would imagine. In fact, we have not got the machinery for carrying out the intentions of this Bill. These are points, however, which may be raised in Committee. My opinion is that this is a matter which should be taken up by the Government.

An hon. Member on my right has taken upon himself to assert within my hearing that I am paid for this. I wish to say that that is entirely inaccurate.

That remark was not addressed with reference to the hon. Gentleman's action in bringing forward this Bill. It referred to another incident altogether.

. I should like to ask for what it is suggested I am paid?

For being a Member of Parliament.

I repeat that in my opinion the Government really ought to take up such a Bill as this. It ought to give us something much more effective than any private Member can hope to bring about by a Bill brought forward under these circumstances. Last year the great argument used against it was that we had no right to interfere with the internal economy of trade unions.

Nor in the economy of wages either.

The effect of these strikes is not confined to trade unionists. The whole trade and well-being of the country are affected by them. It has been an argument used in this House time and again from the Labour Benches that when the Government confer any privilege on any section they have a right to see that that privilege is not abused. I do not need to go further than the Trades Disputes Act. No other body in this country has had such privileges conferred upon it, and therefore I think it is perfectly open to the Government, or even to private Members, to urge that something should be done in regard to the method of ballot. Exception was taken to the use by my hon. Friend of the word "strike." Someone said "Lock-out." I am going to deal in a moment with something that had nothing of the lockout about it, but was an absolute strike, and can be called by no other name. When I spoke on this Bill last year, I was told that there was a most perfect arrangement for balloting among trade unions, and upstairs the same view was expressed. I do not care who controverts it, but I have the most ample evidence that the ballot in many instances is not only a farce, but really plays into the hands of the extremists. I will read an account of a ballot which was taken about a month ago in regard to a strike which held up the whole of the service involved, and it is acknowledged to be a true example of what is going on. The statement has also been made that thousands of voters in the miners' ballot were under 16 years of age. That statement was challenged at the time. A few months afterwards the coal strike took place, and statement after statement was made from authoritative sources as to the number of boys who voted. Here is a newspaper with which we are all quite familiar. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] I am not allowed to name it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] It is the "Times." It says:

"Of 990,359 underground workers, 53,893 are under 16 years of age, and of above-ground workers, including females, 234,294 are above 16 and 23,571 under that age."

Under the ballot as at present conducted, an immense number of boys vote. It may be all very well to say that they earn wages, but I do not think anyone can contend that a boy under 16 years of age is a very suitable person to express an opinion and give a vote on something which, perhaps, is going to be tremendously detrimental, not only to his parents, but to the whole country. What we want is some arrangement whereby boys of that age should not be allowed to vote. We have just passed through in Glasgow a very severe time of strikes and hold-ups. We had the dockers going out on strike—not locked out—and, if they had had their way, the whole of the utility services of Glasgow would have been stopped. This is what an old miner writes about that strike:

"A correspondent in a newspaper suggested the other day that the Government should rush through a secret ballot Act which would prevent decent workmen from being terrorised into voting against their conscience—not to speak of their interests—when a strike threatens. Recent events have proved the great need for this. Party politics have been no doubt largely responsible for the failure of previous Governments to pass such a measure, but surely it is the duty of the present Coalition to put this matter right at once. It is certain that if the Government introduce such a Bill they will have the overwhelming support of the electorate in passing it."

I have had no end of letters from working men and women in Glasgow protesting against their not having a voice in all these hold-ups. Why do they not take a ballot? They say, "What is the good of our having a ballot? If we are known to be voting for the other side, we are terrorised and insulted." One of my servants was followed from the dock to his home and was so severely injured that he is not able to be back at work yet. I will give an example of what took place in a recent ballot connected with one of the greatest services of the country. I must not give the names:

"By yesterday morning's post the Union representative received an inquiry from the National Union, London, as to the views the men took on this dispute. He wired that in his opinion the men were dead against striking or having anything to do with it. By midday about 1,000 ballot papers arrived by post. They were opened and laid on the counter of the Union's local office, which I may say adjoins this office, and is more or less crowded with men all day long or men going in and out. It soon became known that the ballot papers had arrived. Men went in and took one or more as they wished. Some took away as many as a dozen, and filled them in, returning them, when they were put into a box and counted later. There was no check on the ballot papers issued, and no signature to them, and if a man took a dozen, and he could if he liked, and did in many instances, he filled up the whole dozen and put them into the box. The counting of the voting papers was done by three Union officials, no one else being present, so that they could twist the votes any way they desired."

That is not a case that occurred weeks, months, or years ago. It occurred within the last six weeks. It was in a matter of the greatest national importance and might have turned the whole decision of the Triple Alliance when they decided, no doubt as we see now, for reasons that have nothing to do with the dispute, not to carry out the request that had been made. This Bill may be imperfect in its machinery, but there is no doubt that the great body of the workers, the moderate men, the older men, are going to demand better protection than they have now from these strikes, protection against the action of a few men in London who decide whether they are to be allowed to work, when they are to be allowed to work, and when they must go out. There has been a great deal said about the right to strike. You have that in the highest degree. I want to see a Bill giving the right to work, and that men who are willing and anxious to work should be allowed to work. It is all very well to say, "Have you no secret ballots among the employers?" The employers, so far as I know, do not use intimidation towards each other. They do not adopt any of the tactics of trade unions. If in retaliation for this Bill hon. Members opposite say, "Include yourselves in this Bill," we are quite willing to abide by the same rules that this Bill would impose upon trade unionists.

Most of my colleagues on this side are actively associated with trade union administration. They are, in the main, trade union officials, actively engaged in carrying out the duties and responsibilities of trade union administration. I am associated with the trade union movement, but not in the direction of an active administrative capacity, so that I can speak with a little more freedom upon the aspect of the question that is contained in this Bill. It would be very difficult to find a trade union official in this country, either in a minor or a major degree, who desires anything in the nature of a trade dispute. If the records of trade union activities were investigated it would be found that in almost every industry in the country our trade union leaders have always been active in the direction of preventing a stoppage rather than rushing into one. A stoppage is a thing that trade union leaders desire to avoid, and the suggestion that the leaders of the trade union movement rush the rank and file into stoppages cannot be substantiated by the facts of the case. The people who throw about this suggestion in various ways blow hot and cold on the whole question. One day we have a condemnation of the rank and file because they are not inclined to accept the views of their trusted leaders, and a few days later the position is reversed, according to the circumstances of the case, and the condemnation is thrown about in respect of leaders endeavouring unduly to impress their opinions upon the rank and file in that direction.

Both statements may be true.

This is not a Scotch joke.

There is no consistency on the part of those who set themselves up as judges as to what trade unionists and trade unions should do. I have here a fair example, taken from one of the London newspapers, which deals with the miners' dispute, and it is an indication of the somersaults that are turned upon this matter. It is a Sunday newspaper. Referring to Mr. Frank Hodges, it says:

When I look at the names attached to this Bill, gentlemen who would hardly pass muster if they made application for membership of a trade union, I do not wonder at the one-sided nature of the proposals, which are typical of the frame of mind of these individuals. This Committee is, to take into consideration the question of a strike in a particular locality. What is the spectacle which at present confronts the country? There are millions on the streets, out of work. Speaking roughly, 75 per cent. of the workers unemployed to-day are upon the streets owing to the fact that they received notices from their employers to terminate their employment. Are we to have under this Bill a committee set up to pass judgment upon the workers' point of view if they decide to withhold their labour; and are the employers to have absolute freedom to give notice to the workers to cease work when and where the particular whim takes hold of them? Analysed from that point of view, the Bill carries its own condemnation. It is one more evidence of the class spirit which is entering so much into the discussion of these questions and which is making trouble all along the line.

It is not proposed by the Bill that the Committee set up shall have anything to do with wages. Its whole purpose would be to see that when a ballot is asked for it is properly carried out.