Commons Sitting of 8 April 1897

COMMISSION.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners. The House went, and, being returned,—
MR. SPEAKERreported the Royal Assent to several Bills which had passed both Houses. (For list, see proceedings of House of Lords of this date.)

LONDON WATER COMPANIES BILLS.
The following Notices of Motions had been given:—

LONDON WATER COMPANIES' BILLS.
Mr. JAMES STUART: That a Select Committee of Nine Members be appointed, Four to be nominated by the House and Five by the Committee of Selection, to whom all Bills promoted in the present Session by the London Water Companies shall be committed.
That all Petitions presented against the said Bills, within the time limited by the Standing Orders, be referred to the Committee; and that such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their counsel, agents, or witnesses, be heard on their Petitions against the Bills, if they think fit, and counsel heard in support of the said Bills against such Petitions.
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

727
That Five be the quorum of the Committee.
That it be an Instruction to the Committee to make provision in each of the Bills that, if the undertaking of the Company be purchased within seven years from the passing of the Act by any public body or trustees under statutory authority, the cost of purchase shall not be increased by advantages conferred on the Company by or resulting from the passing of the Act. (By Order.)

EAST LONDON WATER BILL.
Mr. JAMES STUART: That the Order of 26th February for the committal of this Bill be discharged, and that the Bill be committed to the Select Committee on the London Water Companies Bills. (By Order.)

NEW RIVER COMPANY BILL.
Mr. JAMES STUART: That the Order of 15th February for the committal of this Bill be discharged, and that the Bill be committed to the Select Committee on the London Water Companies Bills. (By Order.)
COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid that he desired, with the permission of the House, to say that, in consideration of the London Water Companies withdrawing Clause 5 of their Bill [Power to take, divert, etc., waters and make subsidiary works] and substituting one that would meet the views of the hon. Member for Hoxton and the London County Council, the House would be put to no further trouble in the matter. Now that the hon. Member and the County Council were convinced of the bonâ fides of the East London Water Company, he hoped that they would in the future assist the Company instead of opposing it.
MR. JAMES STUARTsaid that after the statement made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and after the action of the East London Water Company, he did not propose to take any further action in the matter as regarded that Company.

QUESTIONS.

  MOMBASA RAILWAY.
  COLONEL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state what progress is being made with the Uganda Railway, and if any portion of it is already open for traffic; and when it is anticipated that the whole line will be finished?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. CURZON, Lancashire, Southport): The rails are laid, buttraffic is not as yet opened, up to the forty-fifth mile. The line has been staked out to the eightieth mile, and the general alignment is fixed for nearly four hundred miles. There has been a good deal of ill-health among the labourers and staff, and an exceptionally wet season has also been experienced. But these difficulties are now being surmounted. It is still too early, however, to venture upon any precise forecast of the completion of the entire line, which will be over six hundred and seventy miles in length.

  GLEBE OF KINTAIL (FORESHORSE).
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Crown has the right to the foreshore of the Glebe of Kintail, and thence to the head of Loch Duich; if not, will he state to whom the right belongs?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): As the hon. Member is aware, the Crown is proprietor of the whole foreshore of the Kingdom of Scotland, except in so far as it has passed by express disposition or prescriptive possession into the hands of private proprietors. I have no information about the locality in question; and I am not able, nor should I in any case be willing, to advise the hon. Member as to the ownership of rights over a specified territory, seeing that the rights of the public in regard to the foreshore are the same whether it be the property of the Crown or of a subject.

  POLICE (COUNTIES, SCOTLAND).
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state the reason why the police constables in the counties of Scotland have been increased from 95.3 in 1861, or one constable to every 1,925 inhabitants, to 1,731 in 1896, or one constable to 1,209 inhabitants; and whether, in view of the low percentage of crime in Scotland, he considers this increased burden on the ratepayers justifiable?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: The present strength of the County Constabulary in Scotland, made up to 31st December 1896, is 1,667, or one constable to 1,260 of the population. The increase in the numbers of each County Police Force is made on the recommendation of the Standing Joint Committee; and, having regard to the many duties thrown upon the police by new Acts of Parliament and otherwise, there seems no reason to think that the numbers have been unduly increased.

  INSPECTOR OF POOR (KILTEARN, ROSS-SHIRE).
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the recent appointment of Mr. Mackintosh as Inspector of Poor for the Parish of Kiltearn, Ross-shire, has caused great dissatisfaction to several members of the Parish Council and inhabitants of the district; whether he, is aware that at the meeting of the Council for the election of an Inspector of Poor, Mr. Mackintosh resigned his seat on the Council, and in five minutes later he was proposed and elected to the vacant inspectorship, regardless of the fact that the Standing Order had not been suspended; that Mr. Mackintosh was elected by the casting vote of the chairman, Sir Hector Munro; and that the chairman subsequently withheld from the Council correspondence which had passed between himself as chairman and the Local Government Board for Scotland in regard to the appointment; will he explain why the Local Government Board for Scotland decline to furnish the dissenting Councillors with a copy of the chairman's letters to the Board relative to the appointment and whether the correspondence on the subject in possession of the Local Government Board for Scotland will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: I am aware that certain members of the Parish Council of Kiltearn are dissatisfied with the election of Mr. Mackintosh as Inspector of Poor; but on the other hand, the General Superintendent of the Local Government Board reports favourably of his qualifications. It is possible that the election may have been irregularly conducted, but both this and the proceedings of the chairman can only be reviewed in a court of law. The Secretary for Scotland has read the papers and approves of the action of the Local Government Board, and he does not consider that the public interest would be served by laying the correspondence on the Table of the House.

  TELEGRAPH OFFICES.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state how many of the 2,932 telegraph offices in the United Kingdom at the time of the transfer of the telegraphs to the State were situated in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland respectively; and whether he will state the number of telegraph offices of all kinds in each of the said countries at the present time?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,: The Postmaster General regrets it is not in his power to give separate information regarding the offices in Wales at the time of the transfer. England and Wales together had 2,268 offices, Scotland 419, and Ireland 245. At the present time the numbers are 7,773, 1,484, and 926 respectively.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that Applecross, Ross-shire, is situated at a distance of 15 miles from the nearest telegraph office; and whether, in view of the inability of the Applecross District to provide a guarantee of £67 a year for the establishment of a telegraph office, he will reconsider his determination to demand a guarantee or reduce the amount thereof?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes. The Postmaster General is aware that Applecross is 15 miles from the nearest telegraph office. He would be glad if it were possible to meet the wishes of the people

  731
  there, but he regrets it is not in his power, under the regulations of the Treasury, to accept a lower guarantee than £67 a year.

  HAULBOWLINE DOCKYARD.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, seeing that the labourers employed in the Ordnance Department at Haulbowline are only in receipt of 16s. per week, the War Office will consider the desirability of paying these men upon the same scale as the labourers employed in the Admiralty Department of the island?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS, 'Birmingham, S.): The Secretary of State has caused inquiry to be made as to the rate of wages in the neighbourhood of Haulbowline, and it appears that the amount paid by the War Department is fully the current rate paid to ordinary labourers in the district.

  INCOME TAX (SCOTLAND).
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that while income tax is paid on ordinary feu duties in Scotland as on ground rents in England, it is charged twice, once on the feuar and once on the superior, on the double or treble feu duties payable under the Scottish custom at stated intervals; whether he can state approximately the annual amount of revenue, on which this double income tax is thus paid; and whether, as no similar duplication of income tax arises under the English or Irish systems, he will consider the advisability of either allowing the feuar to deduct income tax in payment of so-called duplicands and triplicands, or of allocating the second income tax now levied on them to purely Scottish purposes?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): Property chargeable under Schedule A of the Income Tax Acts is assessed on its full annual value, and, under the Act of 1842, the superior is assessed directly in respect of
  732
  all dues or casual profits, other than rents or other annual payments, on which he pays the tax by suffering deduction. Therefore, as these duplicate or triplicate feu duties are charged to income tax directly, while the property out of which they issue is already assessed on its full annual value, there is to that extent a double charge of income tax. But these periodical payments or fines are not confined to Scotland, and, wherever they occur, there is the same difficulty under the income tax law. I am unable to state the annual amount of tax paid on these sums, but it will be clear to the hon. Member that if this question is to be raised it cannot be dealt with as a purely Scottish one.

  INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY.
  MR. J. L. WANKLYN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a memorial from the Incorporated Law Society praying that a grant should be made to them in respect of the increasing cost of the judicial duties imposed upon the society by recent legislation; and whether, having regard to the favourable reply which he gave last year to a similar request, he will favourably consider the application?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes, I have received the request alluded to, and last year I proposed a clause in Committee on the Budget Bill to give effect to it. This, however, was opposed, and I was unable to proceed with it. I do not think it advisable to repeat the proposal, and am not at present prepared to deal with the matter in any other way.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: May I ask whether the opposition to the proposal of last year was founded, not upon any objection to the merits of the scheme, but to the method of procedure in intercepting the tax before it reached the Exchequer, and whether representations have not been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the proposal to make this annual grant upon the Estimates would receive a large amount of support from hon. Members on both sides of the House?
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether the opposition of the right hon. Gentleman for West

  733
  Monmouth did not go to the merits of the proposal?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That is my recollection. I am aware that there is a feeling in the House in favour of the proposal, hut as I understood the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Monmouth to object to it altogether, I should like to have an expression of opinion from the House before I should be prepared to deal with the matter.

  ARREST OF MR. CRANSTOUN.
  MR. A. WILLOX: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether W. J. Cranstoun, a British subject, was unlawfully arrested, his property seized, and himself deported from Honolulu; whether Mr. Cranstoun's claim against the master and owners of the steamship Warrimoo for forcibly bringing him from Honolulu to Vancouver against his will, has been decided by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in his favour and damages awarded against them; and what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to obtain from the Hawaiian Government reparation and apology for the wrongful acts?
  MR. CURZON: The particulars with regard to the arrest and deportation from Honolulu of Mr. Cranstoun have for long been in the possession of Her Majesty's Government, and the latter are quite prepared to take up his case and to make representations to the Hawaiian Government on the subject as soon as adequate proof is furnished to them of the British nationality of Mr. Cranstoun. It is nearly a year ago since he was applied to for this information by Her Majesty's Consul General at Honolulu, but we have not heard that any reply has been received, neither have we any knowledge of the proceedings in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

  HOLIDAYS (PRISON WARDERS).
  MR. WILLOX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, of all civil servants, prison warders are alone in not being allowed holidays on Christmas Day,
  734
  Good Friday, and Bank Holidays: and, whether he will give instructions that, as far as practicable, these public servants shall have the Bank Holidays or, where this is impossible owing to the exigencies of the service, they shall be allowed at convenience other days' holidays in lieu thereof?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY, Lancashire, Blackpool): I am not aware that it is the case that all civil servants with the exception of prison warders are allowed these holidays. Christmas Day and Good Friday are treated as Sunday in the prisons, and as a consequence half the staff are on leave on both those days. No other arrangement is possible without an increase of staff, which could not, I think be justified, in view of the amount of leave already allowed to these officers.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENT (ROMFORD STATION).
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to a serious accident which occurred at Romford Station on Wednesday, 31st March, when a man was cut to pieces whilst engaged in shunting operations with horses on the main line, either caused by the horses taking fright at a passing train or by the man having to leave the horses to attend to the chain attached to some horse boxes; and whether, having regard to the danger attached to such operations, he will consider the advisability of requiring the Railway Companies who use horses for shunting purposes to employ at least two men to do this work, one man to attend to the horse and this other to see to the attaching and detaching of the chain?
  MR. HANBURY (for Mr. RITCHIE): Yes, Sir, I am informed that the Board of Trade have received information of the accident referred to, and that a Sub-Inspector of Railways has been ordered to inquire into the circumstances. When his report is received the action to be taken by the Board of Trade will be carefully considered, and the suggestion of the hon. Member will be borne in mind.

  POSTCARDS (MOURNING BORDERS).
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has altered his determination, expressed in the House of Commons on the 18th February 1896, not to permit the use of postcards with mourning borders; and whether any person may now post these cards without being subjected to a fine?
  MR. HANBURY: The rule as to writing and printing on the address side of a postcard has recently been modified, and postcards with a mourning border on either side are now admissible.

  KEW GARDENS.
  MR. J. H. YOXALL: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, what is the average daily number of students in botany who visit the Royal Gardens at Kew during hours when the gardens are closed to the general public?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (MR. A. AKERS-DOUGLAS Kent, St. Augustine's): The attendance varies, but the average may be taken as 20.

  ILLEGAL TRAWLING IN SCOTTISH WATERS.
  CAPTAIN PIRIE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that during the past few days the trawler Dania has again been fishing in the Moray Firth, and that she is now joined by a German trawler the Gadus, No 11, of Hamburg; and whether if this is so, and in view of the apparent impossibility of either preventing foreign trawlers from fishing within the prescribed areas, or from selling the fish so caught at English ports, and that the prohibition of their sale at Scottish ports is only an aggravation of the injury to Scottish interests, the only result being to deprive Scotland of the tolls and dues on the vessels, he, as representing Scottish interests in this House, will urge upon the Government the necessity of taking some steps to really protect these interests in the immediate future?
  MR. T. C. H. HEDDERWICKsaid that he had put
  736
  down a Question on this subject for Tomorrow, which he might as well put now. It was to ask the Lord Advocate whether he would institute inquiries to ascertain whether the trawlers mentioned in the Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, were engaged in genuine business on behalf of foreign owners, or whether they had been brought or induced to come to the Moray Firth by the owners of British trawlers or other persons interested in the industry, in order to evade the laws of the realm?
  The LORD ADVOCATE: The trawler Dania is still fishing in the extra territorial waters of the Moray Firth, but when boarded recently by the commander of the Jackal, the master intimated his intention of departing for Icelandic waters at the end of this week. The trawler Gadus, H. 11, has not been seen inside the Moray Firth, but was sighted by an Aberdeen trawler off the coast of Aberdeenshire. After consultation with the Secretary for Scotland, I see no reason to take action in the direction desired by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. In answer to the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Wick Burghs, I have to say that inquiries have been made, and so far no evidence has been brought to the knowledge of the Scottish Office to show that these trawlers are anything else than bona fide, foreign trawlers.
  CAPTAIN PIRIEsaid that, as this was a matter which was attracting great attention in the north of Scotland, he asked whether the Lord Advocate could make a statement of denial?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1896.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in December 1896, Francis M'Kenna, former tenant of a farm in the townland of Burn, county Cavan, served a notice under the forty-seventh section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act 1896; that the Commissioners replied the lands were occupied by a new tenant; and, if so, can he state what the new tenant's name is?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): M'Kenna, in his application for re-instatement, stated

  737
  that since 1802 his former holding had been in the occupation of a tenant. If this be accurate, the forty-seventh section does not apply, and if inaccurate, it is open to him to renew his application.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he can state, in the case of Bernard Rorke, Drumlane, County Cavan, to be reinstated in his holding, under Section 47 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, the Official Receiver, before deciding to oppose the tenant's application, applied formally to the Court for directions in the matter, and whether such application was made in open Court or in Chamber; (2) is there any official record of the application and of the Judge's order thereon, and before which of the Judges was the application heard; and (3) did the Receiver make any report to the Judge prejudicing the tenant's claim for reinstatement?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The application to the Land Judge was made in Chamber. The Receiver's report is a confidential document, the nature of which cannot be disclosed.

  WEST AFRICA (LIQUOR TRADE).
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is possible to lay before the House a Memorandum on the liquor trade in West Africa, which has been for some time privately before the Chambers of Commerce, and to make the Return on the same subject granted to the House in August 1895?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): The Paper on the liquor traffic, containing the Memorandum to which the hon. Member refers, is in hand, and I hope to lay it, together with the Return granted to the House in August 1895, in a few days.

  OYSTER CULTURE.
  SIR WILLIAM PRIESTLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local
  738
  Government Board whether, in view of the report published last year concerning Oyster Culture in relation to disease, and the diminished consumption of oysters which has resulted therefrom, he proposes to have oyster beds regularly inspected, or to adopt such other measures as will give the public a reasonable assurance that oysters in the market are derived from healthy sources, and not likely to be the cause of disease?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN, Lincolnshire, Sleaford): The subject referred to in the Question is one which I admit to be of importance. It presents, however, many difficulties. The inspection of the oyster beds in this country would not in itself secure the result suggested, and the Question has to be considered in connection with oysters imported from abroad as well as those obtained from English beds. Any scheme to be effective would require legislation, but the subject is receiving my careful consideration.
  SIR W. PRIESTLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in localities where oyster beds and pits had been certified to be contaminated by sewage, any steps will be taken to improve their condition?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am unable to say without notice what steps are or are not to be taken by local authorities.

  POSTAL UNION CONVENTION.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether care will be taken, in connection with the forthcoming meeting of the Postal Union Convention at Washington, to reserve to Her Majesty's Government and all other component elements in the British Empire complete freedom of action in respect of all postal arrangements, including charges within the limits of the Empire itself?
  MR. HANBURY: In 1890 the Post Office were advised that we had no power to establish rates other than those prescribed by the Union between Great Britain and the colonies. The Congress of Vienna in 1891 held that we might establish with our colonies rates lower than the Union rates, but higher than

  739
  our inland rates; but whether this will be confirmed by the Washington Congress is a matter of speculation. The representative of the Government will, however, be instructed to urge the point. As a fact, the United States and Canada have established rates lower than the Union rates between those two countries, as have Austria and Germany, and the Union has not interfered.

  COUNTY COUNCILS (LOANS FROM OFFICIALS).
  MR. E. FLOWER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it has been brought to his notice that cases have occurred in which members of County Councils have borrowed moneys from officials of such County Councils: and whether he will consider the possibility of preventing similar transactions in the future?
  MR. CHAPLIN: No such cases have been brought under my attention, and, assuming that there were such cases, the Local Government Board have no power to interfere, as neither the members nor the officers of County Councils are subject to any jurisdiction of the Local Government Board in such matters.

  PARISH COUNCIL (MARNOCH, BANFFSHIRE).
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he will state on what grounds the Local Government Board compelled the Parish Council of Marnoch, in Banffshire, to discharge the auditor who for some years had done the work satisfactorily for the Parochial Board for £3 3s. per annnm, and to accept the services of a new auditor who charges £6 6s., although he throws upon the Inspector of the Poor the duty of making up a complete abstract of income and expenditure, a duty which the original auditor himself performed; whether he is aware that in the Fordyce and other parishes dissatisfaction also exists on account of the cost and inconvenience arising out of the present system of auditing parish accounts: and whether the Government is prepared to take any steps to remedy these grievances?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: The Act of 1894 imposed on the Local Government Board the duty of appointing auditors, and this duty they discharged by grouping the parishes of Scotland as experience and convenience suggested; obviously, therefore, it was impossible to provide for all the former parochial auditors. It is difficult to compare the old voluntary audit with the statutory audit now in existence, the latter being, as a rule, much more thorough and efficient. The new audit is conducted under stringent regulations, and is therefore more costly than the old system. The Local Government Board is aware that some dissatisfaction exists, and is considering how the system can most satisfactorily be improved. I am in consultation with the Secretary for Scotland, and hope very soon to be in a position to make a definite announcement on this subject. The duty of making up an abstract is laid by Statute on the Clerk or Inspector.

  IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. W. O'MALLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he has seen a resolution of the Grand Jurors of the County of Galway assembled at the Spring Assizes, urging the Government to grant a day mail service direct to Clifden; and if he will see his way to carry out the wishes of the Grand Jury in this matter?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General has seen the resolution referred to. There is already a day mail service by railway to Clifden, but the Grand Jury appear to desire that the trains between Galway and Clifden shall work in close connection at Galway with the accelerated day mail trains on the main line. So far, however, as is known, the company do not propose to run for their own traffic such trains as those desired, and, in view of the large outlay which would be involved, the Postmaster General would not be justified in calling upon them to run special trains on this line for the day mails.

  SHERIFFS (IRELAND).
  MR. M. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether

  741
  it is within the power of the Lord Lieutenant to appoint as Sheriff for a county in Ireland a gentleman who is not possessed of any lands within the county; (2) whether, notwithstanding his refusal to act by reason of his inability to meet the expenses pertaining to the office, or for other good reason, he can be enforced to act or be indicted for refusing to take the oath; (3) will he explain why, although the Corporations of the cities of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Water-ford, Kilkenny, and of the county of the town of Drogheda, appoint their own Sheriff's, and the person to appointed may decline to serve without incurring any penalty, the City of Belfast, with a population of nearly 300,000, has no power to appoint a Sheriff for the city; and (4) if he will state whether the gentleman appointed as Sheriff for the comparatively small county of the town of Carrickfergus is to be prosecuted for refusing to take up an office which he never consented to fill?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,: The fourth paragraph refers to the merits of a pending prosecution against Captain Higginson, and the first and second paragraphs are either abstract questions of law or refer to matters in issue in that suit. I must, therefore, decline to give any answer to these paragraphs, as it must necessarily prejudice the trial of the suit. With reference to the third paragraph, power is given to the Town Councils of the cities named, under the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act, 1876, to select three persons qualified to fill the office of Sheriff, and of the three so selected, the Lord Lieutenant, not the Town Council, appoints one to be Sheriff. Section 7 of the Act provides that any person appointed to the office under the Act may decline to servo without incurring any penalty. The Act does not apply to Belfast.
  MR. EDWARD CARSONasked whether it was under Statute Law or the Common Law that prosecutions for not serving the office of Sheriff were taken?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: The prosecution is taken under the Common Law.
  MR. McCARTANasked whether it was the practice of the Attorney General
  742
  in Ireland to appoint a man who had no land in the county and no qualification, to serve?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: That question assumes one of the matters in dispute, and I must therefore decline to answer it.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked what would be the venue of the trial?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: Dublin.
  MR. McCARTANinquired whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman had been called to the fact that Judge Gibson, at the recent assizes at Belfast, spoke most favourably of this man?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDreplied in the negative.
  MR. CARSON: Can he be sent to gaol for not serving this office of Sheriff?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDwas understood to reply in the affirmative.

  PETTY SESSIONS (BALLYNAHINCH).
  MR. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Clerk for the Petty Sessions District of Ballynahinch has resigned; and, if so, on what pension, and by whom the duties of the office are now discharged; and whether the Lord Lieutenant has received a memorial, signed by magistrates of every class and creed, praying that for the convenience of the public the Petty Sessions District of Ballynahinch should be separated from the Districts of Dromore and Dromana, and that, if possible, a clerk who has a residence in Ballynahinch should be appointed to the office?
  MR. GERALD BALEOUR: The Petty Sessions Clerk of Ballynahinch has retired on a pension of £258 per annum, but he continues to act until his successor is appointed. The district of Ballynahinch has been separated from the district of Dromore and Dromana; the election of a clerk is in the hands of the magistrates.

  LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the, Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether the Court valuers at present working for the Land Commission

  743
  have been, or are liable to act as, Sub-Commissioners; and (2) what additional means of obtaining; information over that of the Sub-Commissioners have these Court valuers for reviewing by their Reports to the Chief Commission on appeals, and without submitting themselves for examination in court, the fair rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative, though as a matter of fact none of the Court valuers have been employed as Assistant Commissioners for several years past. The valuers have no greater facilities for obtaining information than the Assistant Commissioners have whose decisions are appealed from. I have already pointed out to the hon. Member that the Land Commissioners, and not the valuers, are responsible for the rents fixed on appeal. The Land Commission, at the hearing, have before them the schedules filled up by the Assistant Commissioners as well as the reports of the valuers, and the evidence of the parties, and fix the rents, having regard to all these matters and to the circumstances mentioned in the 8th Section of the Land Act of 1881.
  COLONEL WARING: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Court valuer has in his hands, before making his valuation, the valuation of the Commissioners?
  MR. CARSON: May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in any case the Land Commissioners value otherwise than on the amounts fixed by the Court valuer?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot give any answer to the second question. As to the first question, my impression is that the Court valuers have those particulars before them, but I am not sure.
  MR. MCCARTAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chief Commissioners never inspect the holding, and that the only additional information they have is the information sent by the Court valuers?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, Sir; I believe that is so.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg: to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) when the new Purchase Rules of the Land Commission will be issued;
  744
  (2) is he aware that, after the decision by the Queen's Bench Division in Vickery v. Deane, on the 3rd Section of the purchase Act 1888, the Land Commission instituted proposals to purchase instead of agreements to purchase, with the result that tenants still remain liable to pay arrears of rent instead of interest, as the statute prescribes; (3) will he call the attention of the Land Commission to another result of the use of such proposals instead of agreements in what happened recently on the Aremburg Chute Estate, where the sale was made by the mortgagees to a private person for less than half what the tenants offered, through the Land Commission, although the tenants (from whom the receiver Judge accepted interest in lieu of rent) have no remedy against the mortgagees as they would under agreements; and (4) would he have any objection to lay upon the Table, with a view to discussing the new Purchase Rules and Forms, copies of the following documents relating to the Aremburg Chute Estate, viz., the tenants' agreements lodged in Land Commission by mortgagees; the requisitions on title made by Land Commission; the pleadings and affidavits in Rolls Court in administration suit by mortgagees; the judgment of Court of Appeal thereon; mortgagees' affidavits in Land Judge's Court, and the rulings of Land Judge?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: With my right hon. Friend's permission I will answer this Question. The Land Purchase Rules, dated 16th March 1897, have been issued, and were presented to Parliament on the 23rd of that month. No change has been made in the forms, either of agreements or of proposals consequent upon the decision by the Queen's Bench Division, in Vickery v. Deane, delivered in November 1892, and which referred to the application of the 3rd Section of the Land Purchase Act 1888, to cases under the Redemption of Rent Act. (See Cherry and Wakeley, page 472.) With regard to the third paragraph, the facts connected with the Chute Estate are as follows:—The tenants in 1892 applied to the Land Commission to purchase the estate under the 5th Section of the Act of 1885 for the purpose of having their respective holdings resold to them, the tenants undertaking in the common form

  745
  prescribed I to buy their respective holdings at certain prices. Certain rulings were made upon these applications, especially in reference to head rents and incumbrances to which the estate was subject. These rulings were never complied with, and consequently the negotiations for the sale to the Commissioners fell through. The Land Judge in May 1896 sold the property to a private purchaser on terms which he considered advantageous to the interests of all concerned. No requisitions on title were made by the Land Commission. The undertakings of the tenants were all in the common form, one of which I will be glad to furnish to the hon. Member. As to the affidavits of the mortgagees and the rulings of the Land Judge, I have called for certified copies of these and will be also glad to supply them to the hon. Member. The suit in the Rolls Court was one between private individuals on a matter entirely unconnected with the sale of the tenants, and as the files of the Court are open to inspection, it is not considered necessary to lay these documents or copies of them on the Table of the House, but I shall be happy to show to the hon. Member the Report I have received should he desire to see it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it not the fact that in consequence of the forms used by the Land Commission, tenants have lost the purchase of their holdings?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: Not at all, Sir. The tenants undertook to purchase from the Commissioners, in case of the Commissioners being declared purchasers. Hut they were not.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: But if these forms had been forwarded as direct agreements, would they have been enforced?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: The agreement is entirely conditional on the fact that the Commissioners themselves were to remain the purchasers.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I will draw furtheir attention to this matter.

  RIFLE RANGE (TYRELLA, CO. DOWN).
  MR. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what arrangements have been made or are in process of arrangement with reference to
  746
  the establishment of a rifle range at or near Tyrella, in the County of Down?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): Negotiations are proceeding regarding a site suitable for a rifle range near Ballykinder, but I am not at present in a position to make a definite statement on the subject.

  QUEEN'S DIAMOND JUBILEE.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of allowing the mounted branches of the service to wear their shabracques when on duty connected with the commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of Her Majesty's reign?
  MR. BRODRICK: As the wearing of shabracques has been discontinued except in the Household Cavalry, it is not considered advisable that they should be worn on this occasion.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES (IRELAND).
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Leitrim (Mr. PATRICK A. M'HUGH) I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) if he is aware that a labourer named Thomas Davis, of Cullinagh, Crusheen, county Clare, applied to the Ennis Board of Guardians in November last for a labourer's cottage, and that that Board has since then taken no action in the matter; also that Davis, his wife, and two children, inhabit a one room dwelling in which there is neither window or chimney; and (2) will he direct an inquiry to be made into this case, and insist on the Ennis Board of Guardians giving effect to the provisions of the Labourers' Cottages (Ireland) Acts, if it is found that they have failed in the discharge of their duty?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The answer to the first paragraph is in, the affirmative. The labourer in question brought this mutter under the notice of the Local Government Board in January last, and the Board were informed by the Guardians that the application would be considered by them in connection with their next scheme for cottages. No new scheme has yet been submitted, and it is not

  747
  considered necessary to hold an Inquiry, as suggested. 139 cottages have already been authorised to be provided in this Union.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL (SIX-MILE-BRIDGE, KILLARNEY).
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Leitrim, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland has his attention been called to the case of Daniel Moynihan, who had been for 36 years teacher of the Six-Mile-Bridge National School, near Killamey, who died suddenly in the first week of January in the present year, having taught his school on Monday 4th January, and was buried on the following Saturday; was the deceased teacher highly proficient, and entitled to a retiring allowance if he had applied for it; will he explain why the application of the widow and six orphans of the deceased, who are now destitute, for the retiring allowance to which the deceased was entitled was refused; and will this case be reconsidered?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The teacher referred to rendered service up to the 1st February (not January), and died on the 4th of that month, the day on which he resigned. His service had been satisfactory, and had his health been certified as broken down, and his application for a retiring gratuity been received in due time prior to his death, there is no reason to suppose that a gratuity would not have been awarded in the case. But there is no legal power to award a gratuity to the representatives of a deceased teacher where death occurs before the grant is made. In such cases the premiums paid by the deceased teacher to the Pension Fund are refunded to his representatives with interest, and this has been done in the present case. There is no basis for reconsideration of the case.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: This sort of case occurs every year, and questions of this kind are put over and over again, will the right hon. Gentleman bring in a Bill to remedy the law in this respect?
  [No reply was given.]

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Leitrim, I bear to ask the Chief Secretary for
  748
  Ireland (1) whether the Royal Irish Constabulary barracks at Tullaghan, county Leitrim, is about to be broken up; (2) can he state on what grounds and, if the change is being made for purposes of economy; can he say how much will be saved to the local rates, if any, and how much to the Imperial Exchequer; and (3) to what purpose will the savings effected by the proposed change be devoted?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A proposal is now before the Inspector General for the abolition of this police station. It is considered by the local responsible authorities that a separate station at Tullaghan is no longer essential, and that the necessary protection to persons and property can be afforded from adjoining stations. No saving to local rates will result, inasmuch as no rate in aid of the cost of police is locally levied, but a saving of about £200 a year will ultimately accrue to the Imperial Exchequer. The Question in the last paragraph is part of a much larger one, and I must refer the hon. Member to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. RICHARD N. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Irish Government has been drawn to the statements contained in the pastorals of some of the Irish Roman Catholic Bishops, and in a recent charge of the Coroner for the County of Donegal to the prevalent indications of efforts now being made in Ireland to reestablish secret unlawful societies; and, if so, whether, in view of such indications, the Government will reconsider their intention to reduce the Royal Irish Constabulary Force?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Attention has been directed to passages in recent pastorals of several of the Roman Catholic Bishops in Ireland in denunciation of secret societies. As regards the reduction of the Royal Irish Constabulary force, I must point out that, in view of the continued improvement in the condition of Ireland generally, it has been found practicable to arrange for a considerable reduction in the strength of the force. This decision was come to with due regard to the public interests, and after consultation with the responsible authorities. I see no occasion to alter it.
  MR. DANE: Has the attention of the Government been called to the charge of the Coroner respecting the condition of things in County Donegal?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No; I am afraid I have not looked into that part of the question. Perhaps the hon. Member will put it down again.

  CRETE.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any of the Great Powers, in addition to England and Italy, have agreed to the French proposal for the early evacuation of Crete by Turkish troops; and when that evacuation is expected to take place?
  MR. CURZON: We have not heard of the formal proposal to which the hon. Member appears to allude, though inquiries have been addressed by the French Government to the other Powers as to their views on the subject. It is impossible to state at present when the withdrawal of the Turkish troops will take place, several of the Powers having expressed the opinion that the withdrawal of the Greek troops should be an antecedent step. The initiative would appear, therefore, to rest with the latter.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENT (POTTER'S LANE, WEDNESBURY).
  MR. WALFORD GREEN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to an accident which recently occurred at the level crossing on the London and North Western Railway at Potter's Lane, Wednesbury; and whether, having regard to the number of accidents that occur at level crossings, he will consider the possibility of closing by law all such crossings in populous districts?
  MR. HANBURY (for Mr. RITCHIE): Yes, Sir; the attention of the Board of Trade has been called to this accident. They cannot, however, support the suggestion that all level crossings at populous places should be abolished. The hon. and learned Member will recollect that level crossings are made with the direct legislative sanction of Parliament.

  MASSACRE AT EGHIN.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can inform the House whether punishment has been inflicted on the authors of the massacre at Eghin last October, in which 1,500 unarmed Armenian Christians were cruelly put to death, as detailed in Blue-book, Turkey, No. 7, 1897?
  MR. CURZON: We have not heard that any answer has been returned to the strong representation made by Her Majesty's Ambassador on the subject in December last, but inquiry will be made of Sir Philip Currie.

  CAVALRY HORSES.
  CAPTAIN PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the War Office is advised that cavalry horses of under six or over 14 years of age are thoroughly efficient and fit for active service; and, if so, at what ages the limits of fitness for active service are placed; and how many horses there are maintained on the peace establishment of the cavalry at ages outside the limits so fixed?
  MR. BRODRICK: In the opinion of the military authorities horses may be sent on field service in Europe between five and 16 years of age, provided they are sound. There are 1,249 horses on the peace establishment of the cavalry under five years of age, and 79 over 16 years of age.

  ENLISTMENT REGULATTONS.
  CAPTAIN PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for War whether he will state the average ago at enlistment of the 402 young soldiers by whom, or upon whose behalf, applications to be released from their engagements were made in 1896, on the ground that they had enlisted below the age of 18 years; and the number of such applications which were acceded to; and whether it is a fact that a boy named Tyrrell was enlisted for the cavalry in May 1896, giving his age as 18 years; that his parents made application for his discharge in February 1897, stating that he was a mere child, giving proof by the production of his birth certificate that his actual age on enlistment was 15 years and 1 month, and that

  751
  the boy was then discharged after serving for 10 months; and, if this is so, whether he will inquire into the matter, with a view to stopping in the future such wilful disregard of the regulations for enlistment which is becoming so prevalent?
  MR. BRODRICK: The average age of the 402 young soldiers cannot readily be given; but the following details regarding them may meet the hon. Member's requirements:—172 were discharged as under 17 years, 155 were discharged as between 17 and 18 years; and 75 between 17 and 18 years of age were retained. The case of the boy Tyrrell is as stated in the Questions. He gave his age as 18 years, and his physical development was so fully the equivalent of that age as to deceive the medical officer. There was no wilful disregard of regulations, and the number of enlistments under age has decreased of late years.
  CAPTAIN PIRIEasked whether, if the discharge of Tyrrell had not been applied for on the eve of the leaving of the regiment for India, the boy would have been sent to India?
  MR. BRODRICKsaid that if the boy deliberately told a he and said his age was 18, and if his physical development were up to the standard of that age, as there were no means by which the medical officer could discover the year in which the boy was born, the boy would of course have been sent to India. ["Hear, hear!"]
  CAPTAIN PIRIE: I cannot argue the question — [Ministerial cheers] — and, therefore, I give notice that as the Government have taken—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member cannot give notice in that manner.

  SANITARY MEASURES (INDIA).
  CAPTAIN PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what steps, if any, have been taken to carry out the urgent recommendation of the Sanitary Commissioner with the Government in India, in his Report for 1894, which is also quoted with approval in the Report on Sanitary Measures in India in 1894–95, that much might be done to diminish the extent and severity of contagious diseases among the British troops in India by providing increased facilities for bathing with comfort and convenience
  752
  in private and public baths, and by inculcating habits of personal cleanliness among the troops?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,: I have received no special Report on the action taken on the representations made by the Sanitary Commissioner with the Government of India in 1894, but I understand that, in the opinion of the military authorities, ample provision is made for supplying British soldiers in India with the means of personal cleanliness. The importance of the matter is so well understood that it seems unnecessary to call for any special Report.

  WELSH LAND COMMISSION (REPORT).
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he is in a position to state his decision as to authorising an official translation into Welsh of certain portions of the Report of the Welsh Land Commissioners; (2) whether he is aware that such a translation is the unanimous recommendation of the Commissioners, and that they state in paragraph 926 of the Report that without such a translation there will be great difficulty in bringing the views of the Commissioners to the knowledge of a large number of the tenant farmers of Wales; and (3) whether he has considered the suggestion made by the Commissioners that the determination of the parts of the Report which it is most desirable to translate into Welsh should be left to a Committee of the Commissioners, acting in conjunction with the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The answer to the first paragraph is in the negative; to the second and third in the affirmative. Matters are in this position at present: After consultation with the Treasury, I informed the Chairman of the Commission that before making any recommendation to the Treasury I should wish to be furnished with a preliminary statement as to the nature and bulk of the extracts which the Commission thought might with advantage be translated; and I am now waiting for his final answer, which has not yet reached me.

  PRIVILEGE CABS.
  MR. T. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet received any answer from the railway companies with regard to the new proposals submitted to him by the Association of Cabdrivers and Proprietors in the Metropolis, with a view to the settlement of the privilege question; and whether, in view of the probable large number of visitors to London during the ensuing-season, he will endeavour to arrange a conference between the parties, with a view to putting an end to the tension that exists in the business?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I received last month certain fresh proposals for a solution of the present difficulty from the committee of a conference of cab proprietors and cab drivers, but after a careful examination of them, and some private information, I have been forced to the conclusion that they do not afford a probable basis for a settlement. If I can see any indications, as at present I must say I do not, that such a conference as the hon. Member suggests would be acceptable to both parties, I will gladly do anything that lies in my power to promote it.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES COMMISSION.
  MR. J. R. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the provisions inserted in the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1895, whereby the powers conferred on the Scotch Fishery Board of regulating trawling within 13 miles of the Scotch coast cannot be exercised unless the States Signatories of the North Sea Convention accept them as binding on their own subjects, what steps (if any) the Foreign Office has taken to obtain their assents from these States Signatories?
  MR. CURZON: No steps have so far been taken to obtain the assent of the States Signatories of the North Sea Fisheries Convention to a limit of 13 miles for trawling, the matter still being under the consideration of the Government.

  SAILORS HOME (CORK).
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty (1) whether he has received a communication from the Royal Sailors' Home, Cork, applying for an increase of the annual grant to the Home given by the Admiralty: (2) whether he is aware that this grant was some years ago £100 per annum, but was reduced to £25 per annum, and could he explain the reason for this large reduction; (3) whether he is aware that 1,170 men of the Royal Navy availed themselves of the Home during the past year, and that the expenditure for the year was considerably in excess of the receipts; and (4) whether the Admiralty will increase the grant?
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the large and increasing number of sailors who avail themselves of the Royal Cork Sailors' Home, the Admiralty will consider the desirability of making some addition to their present small annual grant to that institution?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,: The facts are substantially as stated in the first three paragraphs of the hon. Member's Question. The number of men of the Royal Navy using the Home last year appears to have been exceptionally large. The claims of the Royal Cork Sailors' Home shall be carefully considered when the annual grants are made. The whole question of the method of allocating these grants is now under consideration.
  CAPTAIN DONELANasked whether the recent considerable addition to the naval establishment at Cork Harbour would also be considered?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; all the circumstances will be taken into consideration, but I cannot speak very hopefully of being able to raise this grant. A much larger grant is made to Queenstown also.
  In answer to Mr. CARSON.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid: The only alteration in the condition of the service is that candidates who failed have been allowed one further trial.

  NITRO-GLYCERINE FACTORY (ANGLESEY).
  MR. W. T. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that the draft licence for the erection of a nitro-glycerine manufactory by Mr. David Paisley at Rhos Neigr, in Anglesey, does not carry out the requirements of the Explosives Acts, in not containing a proper plan showing the situation of the proposed works; whether he is aware that the said manufactory is to be built upon common lands, and in dangerous proximity to the main line of the London and North Western Railway, and to the rising watering-place of Rhos Neigr; and whether a licence under the Explosives Acts, when granted, would entitle the licensee to enclose common lands in defiance of the rights of the commoners?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The plan attached to the draft licence was considered by the Chief Inspector of Explosives to satisfy the requirements of the Act. The question of dangerous proximity is one which will be proper for the local authority to consider in deciding on the application. I am not aware that the factory is to be built upon common land, but I should certainly say that the licence would not entitle the holder to enclose such land.

  COOPERS (DEPTFORD VICTUALLING YARD).
  MR. C. J. DARLING: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if any decision has yet been come to in regard to the petition of the coopers employed in the Deptford Victualling Yard for an increase in their daily rate of pay?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Two rates of pay are in force for coopers employed in the Victualling Yards—(1) the piece work rate of 6s. per day, or, in time of pressure, a, maximum rate of 7s. per day; (2) the "day pay" rate of 4s. 4d. per day. For superannuation purposes, an average rate was fixed of 5s. per day. The coopers petitioned to have their "day pay" rate brought up to that decided on for superannuation, viz., 5s. per day, and after careful consideration, their Lordships decided to accede to their petition in its entirety, and allow the rate asked for. Orders have been issued to the Yards
  756
  authorising the new rate to come into force from the commencement of the current financial year.

  WATERFORD, DUNGARVAN AND LISMORE RAILWAY.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will undertake to restrain action on the part of the Board of Works in Ireland in regard to the Waterford, Dungarvan and Lismore Railway until the Estimates for the Board of Works come before the House, in order that opportunity may be given for Debate, and that the views of the ratepayers, whose interests are much larger than those of the Treasury, may be ascertained?
  MR. HANBURY: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone this Question till Monday, as I have not yet received the information from Dublin? Nothing will be done in the meantime.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: If the right hon. Gentleman undertakes to restrain the action of the Board of Works in the meantime, I will postpone the Question to Monday. But I think the most convenient course will be to postpone the Question until after the Easter holidays, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to do so.
  MR. HANBURY: No, I think Monday will be better.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he could ex-plain why the only communication made to the Duke of Devonshire by the Board of Works as to the proposed foreclosure or sale of the Waterford and Lismore line, had reference to a proposed hiring by them of the rolling stock (which belongs to His Grace), and that there was no communication in reference to the effect on the public interest, or on that of the guaranteeing-ratepayers of county Waterford, as to the intended foreclosure; and whether any undertaking can be given that those interests, of which the Duke of Devonshire is the principal representative, will be consulted before either foreclosure or sale is sanctioned by the Treasury?
  MR. HANBURY: The hon. Member is not correct in the assumption made in the first Question. Not one, but several communications were made to the Duke or his agent by the Board of Works on

  757
  the subject of a foreclosure or sale, and there have been in addition interviews and correspondence on all the points mentioned, between the Duke and the Treasury, which is the Department controlling the Board of Works. The interests mentioned will, of course, be consulted, and it was solely in the interest of the locality that the Treasury have recently refused an offer of £120,000 from another quarter for their loan of £93,000 and arrears of interest.
  MR. CARSON: May I ask how the interests of those concerned were consulted?
  MR. HANBURY: Naturally the interest of those in the neighbourhood is one of the first things the Treasury would consider, and they have already considered it.
  MR. DUNBAR BARTON: Does it rest with the Board of Works in Dublin or with the Treasury in London to decide whether a mortgage of this kind is to be purchased. [Nationalist cheers.]
  MR. HANBURY: The matter rests with the Treasury.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as the County of Waterford pays £14,000 a year for this line, if he can at least give us some assurance that the Gentleman, the next largest creditor to the Government, will be consulted?
  MR. HANBURY: He has been consulted, and is being consulted at the present moment.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow mo to revert to my earlier Question for a moment. I would press him very strongly to allow the matter to stand over until after the Easter holidays, so that the Irish Members of different Parties, who are interested, may not be forced to remain here at great inconvenience until Tuesday next.
  MR. HANBURY: I will see whether I cannot give an answer to that Question To-morrow. That, at any rate, will not detain the hon. Member.

  GUN LICENCE (CO. ROSCOMMON).
  MR. JOHN DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he
  758
  is aware that Charles M'Dermott, of Clooncalgy, Ballinlough, County Roscommon, has been refused a licence to carry a double-barrelled gun, although his application for licence was supported by several Justices of the Peace; and, if so. on what grounds the application was refused?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: An application for the grant of an arms licence to M'Dermott was received in January 1895, signed by one Magistrate and other persons, including three Members of Parliament, of whom the hon. Member was one, and was refused by the Licensing Officer. The power to grant or withhold such a licence is vested by law in the Resident Magistrate, as Licensing Officer, and it would be contrary to practice to state the grounds on which the application in this, or any other case, was refused. I may add that in 1879, and again in 1892, the licence that this man had to keep firearms was revoked.
  MR. DILLON: Is there no remedy in case of a man being unfairly refused a licence?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I believe that there is no appeal from the decision of the Resident Magistrate.

  ARMY MEDICAL SERVICE.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Army Medical Service is at the present time sufficient, not only for mobilisation, but for medical military needs at home and abroad; and, if not, whether any steps are being taken to increase the staff?
  MR. BRODRICK: The establishment of officers of the Medical Staff is about 40 under strength. Measures to make good this deficiency are now under consideration.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYasked whether it was not the fact that the officers on the retired list were as numerous as those on the active list, and whether steps would be taken to remedy this?
  MR. BRODRICK: The officers on the retired list are employed on the home service, and there are complaints in consequence that the officers on the active list are debarred from employment on the home stations.

  NECESSITOUS BOARD SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in the Return which he has promised to present showing the effect of the Government proposals for necessitous School Board districts, he will make it clear on the face of the Return that the rate given is the nominal rate and not the actual amount paid by the ratepayers, and that the figures as given in the last published Report of the Committee of Council refer in some instances to periods as far back as the close of the year 1893?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST, Cambridge University): The rate given in the Return will be that given in the financial statements of the respective School Boards. It is the gross rate per pound on the rate-able value of the district, which would raise the sum received by the School Board from the rating authority. This will be made clear on, the face of the Return. The figures in the last Report are those for the year ending September 29, 1895. Some figures for 1892–93 are introduced for purposes of comparison only.
  MR. GRAYasked whether the Return made by the School Boards in the year ending September 29, 1895, did not include statistics of schools for October, 1893, and that, in consequence, the Return would be, in parts, four years old?
  SIR JOHN GORST: I must ask for notice of that Question.

  POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS (CHARLEVILLE, CO. CORK).
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is contemplated to make a change in the arrangements for postal delivery in Charleville, county Cork; and, if so, is it intended to arrange that the latest delivery shall be on the north side of the town; and whether, in view of the fact that the principal offices and business establishments are on the north side, the postal authorities will reconsider the matter?
  MR. HANBURY: It is in contemplation to rearrange the postal delivery at Charleville on the 1st May, but the latest delivery will not be on the north side of
  760
  the town. On the contrary, the delivery on that side will be made about 25 minutes earlier than at present.

  POOR SCHOOL BOARD DISTRICTS.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the increased grant to poor School Board districts, after the first year in which it is paid, will be counted in reduction of the rate, and the grant, therefore, pro tanto reduced in subsequent years?
  SIR J. GORST: The grant in the first year will depend on the rate needed when there was no such assistance given. In subsequent years the grant will be based on the rate needed when such, assistance is given, which will presumably be somewhat less.

  EDUCATION RATE.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the Solicitor General whether the rate in the pound, as mentioned in Section 97 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, and referred to in the Resolution of 5th April last, is the rate stated on the Demand Note of the rating authority and actually paid by the ratepayers, or the nominal rate determined by the proportion between the amount required by the School Board paid by the rating authority and expended in the year and the gross rateable value of the district, regardless of the amount which the ratepayer must find to cover the loss through compounding, cost of collection, bad debts, and empty houses?
  SIR J. GORST: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer the Question. I am advised that the rate in the pound, mentioned in Section 97 of the Act of 1870, and referred to in the Resolution of April 5, is not precisely either of the two rates mentioned in the Question. It means the rate in the pound on the rateable value of the district which produces the sum required in a year ending September 29 for the purpose of the annual expenses of the Board, and actually paid in that year to the treasurer by the rating authority. Thus it is the rate which yields as its net produce the sum so required and paid, a somewhat higher rate than that yielding the same sum as its nominal or gross produce.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BERRIEW SCHOOL BILL.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST, Cambridge University)THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST, Cambridge University) moved "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The right hon. Gentleman said that the object of the Bill was to correct a mistake made by the Education Department under the late Government. At that time a scheme was framed under the Welsh Intermediate Act, and it was approved by the Committee of Council on Education in 1894. Immediately afterwards a petition was presented against the Bill, and in consequence of this petition, the scheme, according to law, ought to have been laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament for 40 days before it was brought into force by Order in Council. After the petition had been presented all the petitioners except eight withdrew their names, and it was supposed that the effect of that was to make the petition not in conformity with the regulations of the Act of 1873, and, therefore, without laying the scheme on the Table of either House of Parliament, it was brought into force by Order in Council. Then objection was taken in the House that the scheme ought not to have been so approved, but ought to have lain on the Table for 40 days. The Law Officers advised that a mistake had been made, but that there was no means by which this mistake could be set right except by annulling the Order in Council by means of an Act of Parliament. In accordance with that advice, in 1895, immediately after the present Government came into office, a Bill was introduced and read a Second time in that short Session, but it did not proceed further. It was introduced again in the last Session, but never had the advantage of a Second Reading. It was now once more before the House. It was a perfectly small affair, really, to correct a mistake which was inadvertently made by the Department. Nothing had been done under the scheme, and the Bill would place all parties exactly in the same position as if no such error had been committed.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENproposed to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months." He submitted that the fact that an irregularity had been committed was not in itself a matter of sufficiently grave importance to warrant the rejection by the House of a scheme which was practically unanimously desired by the district. The rejection of the scheme would deprive the district of a very important addition to their educational machinery.
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the merits of the scheme could not be discussed. The only question which could properly be raised was whether an irregularity should be put right, and that without reference to whether the scheme was a good or a bad scheme.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENsaid that the only question was whether the Bill should be rejected, and whether the irregularity was so great as to justify the repealing of the assent. As he wished on behalf of those interested to express their strong feeling in favour of the scheme as it stood, he formally moved the rejection of the Bill.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISseconded the Amendment. He said that the question was now reduced to such narrow limits that it was really difficult to bring before the House what were the feelings of the parishioners of Berriew with regard to it. The parochial electors of the County Council district of Berriew said in their petition that they believed the scheme of establishing another department in the Berriew elementary school would be of great benefit to the district, and they prayed the House to reject the Bill for repealing the Royal Assent. They knew what would happen if this Bill was Read a Second time. When a Conservative Government was in power these schemes, or any portion of them, might either be rejected in the House of Commons or in the House of Lords if they did not accord with Conservative instincts; and when a Liberal Government was in power the Conservative Party was always strong enough in the House of Lords to secure their object. It was therefore natural, when a scheme, of which a parish had approved, had become law, the Welsh Members should try

  763
  to prevent it from being upset. The Government had given the first place on a Thursday afternoon to a Bill which related to a single parish, and which was protested against by nearly all the inhabitants of that parish. There were 381 County Council electors in the parish, and out of that number 14 had refused to sign the petition, and 18 had not been asked. Every other person had signed the petition against the Bill; therefore, the Welsh Members came before the House with practically the entire body of feeling in the parish behind them. The consequence of passing this Bill would be that the parish would have to pay its share.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now going into the merits of the scheme.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid it was extremely difficult to keep within the limits laid down. But the Government were actually putting down this Bill which applied to one parish, and was rejected by that parish, as the First Order of the Sitting; while the Government, when appealed to by the Welsh Members on behalf of the largest county in Wales, with a population of three-quarters of a million, to do something to correct a slight technical difficulty in connection with intermediate education, refused to do anything. The Government were surely not bringing this Measure forward because they had nothing better to do with their time. Wales had been waiting to see what the Government was going to do for it, and now this Bill was presented. He believed that throughout the length and breadth of the Principality the action of the Government would be looked upon as indicating a deeply-rooted hostility to the feelings of the majority of the Welsh people, and an unwillingness to do anything for that majority. In his judgment the Government had acted in a way that would be repudiated by the great majority of the Welsh people.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that the introduction of this Bill on the present occasion was a gross abuse of the time and patience of Parliament. [Cheers.] Though he did not understand the merits of the scheme, he understood the merits of this Bill. The Irish Members had again and again pressed on the Government the necessity for some legislation with regard to the Erasmus Smith Schools, but they had always been refused.
  764
  on the ground that there was no time to deal with the question. This Bill set out a false statement on its very front when it was said that the Order should be annulled because of an inadvertence. If, for example, a suitor in any court in the kingdom was late, would a Bill be brought in to supplement his defects? The majority of the people of Berriew were in favour of the scheme, but a little knot of persons were opposed to it. On the facts being presented to them, this knot of persons withdrew their petition, and having withdrawn it, then the scheme became valid by law. But having become valid by law, and the scheme being obnoxious to this small section of the community, who happened to belong to the Church of England, the Government were now going to afford a small section the opportunity, by a special statute, to present a fresh petition. This was carrying legislation not merely to an excess, but into the grotesque. If ever there was a case for a private Bill, this would be the case. The Irish Members had been deprived by the Government of the Wednesday which they had obtained for their Land Bill. There had been very late sittings, and the Closure had been exercised freely on the understanding that the Government intended to get through some most important and stupendous legislation. But what had the mountain in labour produced? This Berriew School Bill—a Measure for two men and a boy in some parish in Wales. [laughter.] That was the business which was given the first place on the Order Paper that day, and the last business set down was almost equally important—namely, the introduction of a Bill for making regulations with respect to bicycles in Ireland. [laughter.] Members who had begged for nutritious legislation were offered this chopped straw instead. Here was a scheme formally made with the assent of the parish, as declared by a vast majority. A minute section of the inhabitants, however, petitioned, but did not proceed with their petition, and then some other people who would not put pen to paper——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now repeating the arguments with which he began his speech.
  MR. T. M. HEALYobserved that the Bill enjoyed one distinction—if nothing could be said in its favour, very little,

  765
  apparently, could be said against it. [laughter.] It was because this matter was so utterly unimportant that he protested against the time of the House being taken up with this discussion. The right hon. Gentleman had intimated that the Into Government were in some way committed to this legislation; but at any rate the late Government had abstained from bringing in any Bill on this subject. He was not surprised that the vast majority of the people of Wales should view with prejudice and dislike the action of the Government. It was instructive to contrast the way in which a small number of people in Wales were being favoured by the Government with the way in which Irish people had been treated in similar circumstances.
  MR. SPEAKER: That is not relevant to the subject before the House.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that the Welsh Members were well advised in opposing the Bill, having regard to the prejudice that surrounded it, and protested against the policy of the Government in frittering away the time of Parliament upon pettifogging legislation of the sort.
  MR. EDWARD CARSONthought that this Bill was far from being of a trifling character. He looked upon it as one of the best Bills that the Government had brought in. [Opposition cheers and laughter.] No one who examined the circumstances could deny that if this Measure had not been introduced parties who had been given rights under an Act of Parliament might have had their rights frittered away by departmental incompetency. An Act of Parliament laid down that before certain people could be interfered with by that revolutionary tribunal, the Charity Commission, the schemes propounded by it must be placed upon the Table of the House if that was desired. Parliament ought to insist upon that procedure jealously. As he understood this case, some persons who were interested in the Berriew School Hellenic petitioned against it, and asked that their petition should be laid upon the Table of the House. For some reason the Department concerned took upon itself to decide that the petitioners were not in earnest. It would be most unsatisfactory if the Department could disregard a petition on the ground that they had been informed that certain of the petitioners no
  766
  longer wished to have their names appended to it. The negligence or incompetence of the Department had led to a serious miscarriage of justice, and the object of the Bill was to preserve the rights given by Parliament to those who were interested in charities. They might congratulate themselves upon the fact that they had a Government in power strong enough to put an end to such gross acts of interference with the rights of the community. [Opposition, laughter.] He only wished that the same strength of purpose were exhibited when similar injustice was perpetrated in Wales. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONthought they owed a debt of gratitude to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for bringing the House to a sense of the importance of the Bill before it. When he wished to ascertain the relative importance of proposed Measures it was his practice to refer to the Speech from the Throne, and in that speech this year he found this Bill distinctly foreshadowed. The first passage addressed to the House of Commons said:—
  "A Measure for the promotion of primary education, by securing the maintenance of Voluntary Schools, will be laid before you."
  That had been done. Then the Speech went on: —
  "If time permits, you will be invited to consider further proposals for educational legislation."
  Well, time had permitted, the Government having prevented them from discussing important subjects which were not connected with education. The Necessitous Board Schools Bill they knew was an after-thought, and therefore the present Measure was what the Government must have had in mind when they foreshadowed "further proposals for educational legislation." He trusted that the Welsh Members would be duly grateful. The Government would never have placed this Bill first on the Paper on the Thursday before Easter—one of the most important days in the Session—if they had not believed it to be an important Measure. It was an important Measure, and its importance lay in its preamble, which raised a question upon which they ought to have the advice of the

  767
  Law Officers of the Crown, who, however, were not in their places. Why were they not present to advise the House upon a Bill which was founded entirely upon technicalities? He wished to know whether the scheme was at this moment the law of the land? If the answer was in the affirmative, he would ask the Attorney General to show by reference to the Acts of Parliament on what he founded his opinion. If the answer was in the negative, what was the use of this Bill? What was the good of annulling an Order in Council which was itself a nullity? The Vice President indicated that the scheme was the law of the land. Then, in considering this Bill to amend the law, they were entitled to discuss the merits of the law.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have already ruled on that point.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsubmitted that as the scheme which the Bill would destroy was now stated to be part of the law of the land, they were entitled to discuss its merits.
  MR. SPEAKER: This is a Bill for the purpose of removing an irregularity, and of giving the House an opportunity of discussing the merits of the scheme on a future day.
  MR. T. M. HEALY, on a point of order, called Mr. Speaker's attention to his ruling on this Bill on September 2, 1895. The Speaker then said:—
  "I have read the proposals of the Bill, and I cannot say that it is out of order for an hon. Member to refer to the scheme, but I hope he will not do so in more detail than is necessary."
  And, later on, the Speaker said,
  "It appears to me the hon. Member is discussing the history, and not the merits, of the scheme,"
  suggesting that it would be in order to discuss the merits.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have not referred to "Hansard," and do not know in what context or under what circumstances those observations were made, but, having fully considered this Bill—I do not know whether it is the same Bill— I am clearly of opinion that the merits of the scheme cannot be discussed [Cheers.]
  MR. E. ROBERTSONdesired to point out the position in which the House
  768
  was placed. This being a mere Bill to amend a departmental irregularity and to give the House an opportunity of again discussing an Order in Council, could have no possible effect upon the law of the land. If the Bill did not amend the law, its passage would leave the scheme in precisely the same legal status as now. This was a question on which the House was entitled to be advised by the Law Officers, and until they received that advice the House would be neglecting its duty if it took part in the ignominious farce of proceeding with a Bill, the real scope of which no one seemed to understand, and the issue of which would be the production of a mere nullity.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid that, if he rightly followed the right hon. Gentleman, his knowledge of the actual facts connected with the petition and the circumstances of its withdrawal wag somewhat imperfect. Otherwise he could not understand when the right hon. Gentleman did not tell the House what were the circumstances which induced the gentlemen who withdrew their signatures to take that course. He would state what he understood to be the actual facts of the case. The Montgomeryshire County Council in due course adopted the Intermediate Education Act of 1889; and by so adopting it they took power to levy a halfpenny rate on the whole county. Proper education committees were formed, and, ultimately, a scheme for the carrying out of the Act in Montgomeryshire was adopted by the proper authorities. Part of the scheme involved the bringing into the general system of the county of the endowed school at Berriew. The matter went before the Charity Commission and the Education Department. Shortly before the time for petitioning had ended, a petition was sent up by 20 ratepayers in the parish of Berriew. This was done in pursuance of the Endowed Schools Act, 1873, which allowed not less than 20 ratepayers to petition against a scheme. The effect of the petition, if it was bonâ fide, was to make it incumbent upon the Department to lay the scheme on the Table of the two Houses of Parliament. But before anything further was done, 12 of the 20 ratepayer who had signed the petition withdrew their signatures. He would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman in his

  769
  researches had found that they stated their reasons for so doing. As a matter of fact, he understood that they made the reason of their withdrawal perfectly clear. It was this, that they had been induced to sign the petition by misrepresentations made by those concerned in getting it up. These gentlemen were told that if Berriew School was brought under the scheme there would be a halfpenny rate levied on the parish, while if the school was kept out they would escape the rate. That was an entirely inaccurate representation. Whether Berriew School was or was not brought within the scheme, the halfpenny rate would be levied on the parish just as in every other parish. He brought before the House a declaration signed by these twelve gentlemen in the presence of an impartial witness to the following effect: "We, the undersigned, hereby declare that we were induced to sign the petition against the Berriew School Scheme because we were told that the scheme would involve a rate." The Law Officers of the Crown advised that, notwithstanding the withdrawal of the signatures, the petition having been presented, the necessity arose for laying the scheme on the Table of the two Houses. In regard to that he would like to ask, was it stated in the case laid by the Department before the Law Officers that the petitioners, having signed, afterwards merely capriciously withdrew their signatures: or did the case state that the petitioners withdrew because of alleged misrepresentation? There was nothing in the Act of 1873 to take the whole of this machinery out of what might be called the general law of the land. And what he would submit to the Solicitor General was that fraud vitiated everything. If it was true that these 12 gentlemen were induced to sign the petition by misrepresentation, then the question that ought to have been submitted to the Law Officers was this. Assuming that these signatures were obtained by misrepresentation, was there any bonâ fide petition, from beginning to end. That was really the crux of the case. He submitted that this unprecedented Bill ought not to pass without most careful investigation into the facts, and as a possible solution he would recommend that the Debate might be adjourned in order that the right hon. Gentleman might inquire into the facts
  770
  of the declaration he had brought before the House. Passing from that, he thought there was a great deal in the point made by the hon. Member for Louth. The nature of this procedure appeared to him to be judicial rather than executive. The promoters of a scheme of this kind had to go through a long and somewhat cumbrous form in order to obtain the ultimate Order in Council. The Order in Council was obtained here, and this scheme for Montgomeryshire, including the Berriew Scheme, was the law of the land. He said that was the case of a judgment, and that the matter was resjudicatœ. What they were now asked to do by the Government was, in consequence of an accidental blunder on the part of the Education Department, to give judgment against the promoters of the scheme. Suppose this had been a judgment of the House of Lords in ordinary litigation, or of the Court of Appeal, the position of the Government would be, that because somebody at some initial stage of the proceedings had committed a blunder, therefore they could not discuss the merits, but were to set aside the judgment of the House of Lords or of the Court of Appeal. What practical reason had the Government shown for correcting this injustice? The Courts in England did not give a new trial, and did not set aside a judgment on mere technicalities unless there was substantial injustice involved. Where was the substantial injustice in this matter? And, above all, what did the Government mean to do? Did they mean to annul the scheme, or oppose it when it came before the House? The right hon. Gentleman spoke in a very pacific spirit, but he did not give any undertaking us to what might be the action of hon. Gentlemen behind him in the matter. Unless the Government were in earnest, and said, "We object to the scheme, and intend to oppose it," what was the practical good of re-opening the matter at all? Above all, when they found a great county like Montgomeryshire acting together in this matter, and only a few people in a particular parish who were really objecting to the consequence of this inadvertence—if they liked—what really was the practical need of going on with the Bill? For these reasons he should certainly oppose the Second Heading of the Bill.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESremarked that the hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the judgments of the Courts could not be quashed by reason of any technicalities. He believed, if it was shown that material facts were withdrawn from the jury, then the judgment would be quashed.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: What I said was that a new trial was not granted in the Courts of Justice on some technical grounds. There must be some substantial injustice done at the trial.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESentirely adopted that view, and said he was endeavouring to make the hon. Gentleman understand that a substantial injustice was done here. That injustice was that one of the parties was kept out of Court by an irregularity. He was going to support this Bill, though not entirely for the same reason that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University had given. In matters of this kind he had a plain rule on which he acted. He voted with his Party always when they were right, often when they were wrong, and invariably when he did not understand the question. Well, that was his position upon this occasion. He did not understand the merits of the Berriew School Scheme, but it seemed to him the merits of the scheme were not in question. What was in question were the merits of the Education Department in the year 1894, at a time when it was presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rotherham. He thought any opposition that came to this Bill came with very ill grace from hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen the consorts of the right hon. Member for Rotherham. They, at any rate, ought to pay a high tribute of generosity to Her Majesty's Government for coming forward to cover their misdeeds; and he had been surprised that in the course of this Debate the culprit in whose real interests this Measure was introduced as a Bill of indemnity—that was the right hon. Member for Rotherham—had not himself risen to support the Government in bringing in this cloak for his wicked misdeeds. The right hon. Gentleman was the man who did it, and it was no use to tell them that this was a technical or slight irregularity. The Education Department had put over it one of the most eminent Members of the Party in
  772
  power, for the very reason that it was a particularly difficult department to keep straight. Thus the right hon. Gentleman opposite was put in that position; otherwise he might have been made Minister for Foreign Affairs, or put into some other inferior position. But for the position of Vice President his Party recognised that they required a man of the highest ability', tremendous determination, industry and acumen, and that was why the right hon. Member for Rotherham was selected. In 1897 they were confronted with this blunder, which the right hon. Gentleman allowed to be made and as to which he was particeps criminis. The whole total effect of the Bill was to throw a cloak over the misdeeds of the Department. In his opinion, the misdeeds which ought never to be forgotten were the misdeeds of a public department. In this particular instance no kind of excuse could be made for pleading ignorance of the conditions of the Act of Parliament. The Department knew perfectly well it was necessary to lay the scheme upon the Table of the House. It knew that unless the scheme were so laid on the Table, a proper and final judgment could not be obtained upon it, and that unless that proper and final judgment was obtained the Order in Council would have been obtained by something not very distantly resembling fraud. With all this knowledge before it the Department deliberately omitted to perform its duty. As a result of that he should have thought the right hon. Gentleman himself would have introduced the Bill of indemnity which he and his Department required. But no; he and his Party left office, and it was reserved for the unfortunate victim, the scapegoat of the Committee of Council on. Education—that secret body of whom they knew so very little—to bring in a Bill of indemnity to cover the misdeeds of the Department. He attached all the more importance to this kind of Bill of indemnity, because they were becoming daily more and more department ridden; and if, every time a Department made a mistake or committed a crime— and Departments were constantly doing both—they were to have, as a matter of course, a Bill of indemnity brought in— not even by the side guilty of the crime, but by the other side—he said that all security was lost. He was bound to sup-

  773
  port this Bill of indemnity, because he did not understand it, but he did so with misgivings, and he hope:! it would be the last Measure of the kind that would be brought in.
  MR. A. H. DYKE ACLANDbelieved the Vice President had stated all the facts, and the only reason why he rose was because the hon. Gentleman opposite had made a statement which he wished to correct, to the effect that he, knowing this to be illegal, deliberately failed in laying the matter on the Table of the House. In this case, and certainly in one former case, probably others, it was honestly believed by the officials of the Education Department, that a notification sent in at the last moment withdrawing certain signatures to it, did withdraw the petition. In this particular case the petition was withdrawn without his knowledge, and in accordance with the traditions of the Department. In the former case—the case of the Dauntsey Charity—great interest was taken in it by the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: No Bill was brought in in that case.
  MR. ACLANDreplied that a new scheme was brought in, and a former Member of that House, now deceased, not being satisfied with the new scheme, presented a petition against it. Then his friends—and he believed the Under Secretary for the Home Department—induced him to persuade those who had signed it to withdraw their signatures to the petition. They did withdraw their signatures, and, in consequence, the scheme was not brought before the House. That was one of the precedents upon which the officials of the Education Department acted in the case of this Berriew Scheme. All he had to say was that when this matter was brought to his knowledge, and the point arose as to whether that was a legal act on the part of the Department, he at once saw that no course was open to him but to refer the matter, as a purely legal one, to the Attorney General and Solicitor General.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid every opportunity had been afforded for persons opposing this scheme to appear before the Joint Education Committee and submit any reasons
  774
  showing that their interests would be unjustly affected. This Joint Committee was a body of five Members, of whom three were Churchmen and two Nonconformists. Further than that, the trustees, including the vicar, assented to the proposal. The twelve men who withdrew their signatures were induced to sign the petition by a false representation that a new rate would be the natural corollary of the passing of the scheme. A specific question he desired to put to the Government. The effect of passing this Bill would be that an opportunity would be offered of wrecking this scheme, and before the vote was taken he would like to know whether opposition to the scheme would be taken in this or in the other House, because that was of vital importance to the question at issue. Hon. Members, perhaps, did not know the inner history of this Bill. The House was not asked to pass it really and solely to remedy a technical mistake, that was not the real reason, and if there had not been a force behind working on the Education Department this Bill would never have been heard of. An article in the National Review for November, signed "A Layman," gave the reasons for the Bill. Referring to Measures which the writer hoped would pass he said: —
  "Among smaller Measures there is one called the Berriew School Bill, a short Bill to bring back within the cognisance of Parliament a scheme under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act. which by accident was illegally passed, without proper time being given for consideration. The scheme is regarded by Churchmen as unfair to the Church"—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member could not, after his ruling, proceed to argue on the merits of the scheme by quotation from and comment on an article in a periodical.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid he would not pursue that line of argument, but the article went on to speak of the Bill about, to be introduced and which was now under discussion, referring to the reasons why it should be brought forward. The article spoke of the failure of the Government to pass the Bill last year, and continued: —
  "To fulfil their promise, they introduced the Berriew School Bill, but it was opposed by Welsh Radical Members, and the Government, with a faintness of heart they had shown in other instances when Church interests were at stake, gave way, and abandoned the Bill."

  775
  And then the writer went on to hope that the Government would not give way to faintness of heart and desert Church interests during the Session. That was the view of supporters of the Bill, that it was introduced, not in order to remedy a technical mistake, but in order to keep from the parishioners interested an educational been which would be granted to them under this scheme. This was why Welsh Members very heartily objected to the Second Heading of the Bill.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEsaid they had been told that, though passed by inadvertence, the Order in Council had all the force of law, and so far as the Berriew School was concerned, it was law, and he could not see the necessity for upsetting the scheme. If, as he did not doubt, the right hon. Gentleman was correct in his law, there did not appear to be any necessity for the Bill. The people of the parish of Berriew and the inhabitants of Montgomery were the best judges of their wants and wishes, and they had expressed these through their representatives and by petitions presented. It could not, of course, be expected that a parish would be absolutely unanimous, and, no doubt, two or three "cranks" would be found even in a Welsh parish, but they had practically shown their feeling in favour of the scheme, and as they were, in his opinion, entitled to a reasonable amount of autonomy in a matter of this kind, he should vote with the Welsh Members. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid Welsh Members were exceedingly obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his very sensible remarks in support of their view. As a general principle, he rather welcomed the ruling of the Law Officers that where signatures were withdrawn from the petition it ought necessarily to fall through, and another opportunity should be given to petition against a scheme. Would the Solicitor General explain what the ruling of the Law Officers really was?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (SIR ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)said perhaps the hon. Member would get his explanation from the hon. and learned Member for York, who, at the time, was Solicitor General under a Unionist Government. [laughter.]
  SIR FRANK LOCKWOODsaid he had the greatest possible pleasure in replying on behalf of the Government— [laughter]—that the opinion of the Law Officers was as the hon. Gentleman had stated. The view taken by Her Majesty's Government, and which, he presumed, had not altered since he left the Government—[laughter]—was that it would be inexpedient that it should be open to persons to put a collusive petition on record, and to leave it until the last-moment and then to give notice that certain names were withdrawn which would prevent a certain number of bonâ fide petitioners from presenting a petition. That was the view of Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he would like to know if that was the view of the present Law Officers?
  SIR F. LOCKWOODsaid he spoke for them. [Laughter.]
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid, then there was no necessity for the Bill at all, for there had been nothing to prevent the parishioners of Berriew from presenting a petition. The House ought to have some guidance from the present Law Officers. This was not a purely technical matter. The late Vice President of the Council had mentioned the Dauntsey case, a charity in Wilts, in which case signatures to a petition were withdrawn, and the then Vice President proceeded as if no petition had been presented, and the scheme became law. There was no Bill brought in on that occasion, and why was a distinction made in the present instance? If the present Government had been guilty of what the hon. Member for Lynn Regis called "misdeeds," they should make reparation, but they were not called upon to do so vicariously on behalf of the late Liberal Government. It was not true that one of the parties to this matter had not had an opportunity of presenting their case against this particular scheme. They had an opportunity first of all of raising their objections before the Joint Committee of Education, and then before the County Council of Montgomeryshire, but they did not take advantage of either of the opportunities afforded them. It was only at the last moment, by means of a false statement of fact—by what in law would amount to fraud—that 20 ratepayers

  777
  were induced to sign a petition to the Education Department. It was known perfectly well that it' the matter went to the House of Lords, where the facts were not known, it was only necessary to make the suggestion that this was an ecclesiastical question, to insure the scheme being upset without any regard whatever to its merits. This matter had been going on for three years, and during the whole of that time the parishioners of Berriew had been deprived of all the advantages of the intermediate education scheme for the county of Montgomery. In addition to that, if this Hill were passed, the matter would go on for another year or two, so that, probably for six years the parishioners of Berriew would be deprived absolutely of all the benefits of the intermediate scheme. That would be the result of annulling this scheme, while, in addition, they would be deprived of a sum of £300 which was simply awaiting the scheme being put into practical operation. He thought it was exceedingly unfair to the parishioners, and to those who were interested in Welsh education, and had been trying to perfect a system of secondary education, that these matters should be constantly brought before the House of Commons. ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,said he had intended to be present during the whole of this Debate, but a meeting of the South African Committee, which had been taking place, required his attendance, and that was the reason for his absence from the House during the greater part of the proceedings. ["Hear, hear!"] He understood the point had been raised as to whether or not this scheme was law. He had no doubt whatever that the scheme was law. The Statute provided that, when an Order in Council had been passed, all the formalities should be deemed to have been observed, and the scheme had the force of an Act of Parliament. He should like just to remind the House of what was the necessity for this Bill. All he knew at the time that he went into the matter was that a petition, perfectly correct in form, and signed by qualified people, had been presented. The hon. Member below the gangway said that those signatures were obtained by some improper means. He knew nothing about that, and he was
  778
  perfectly satisfied that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for York knew nothing of it. The petition having been presented, all the lawyers who looked into the matter came to the conclusion that there was the condition established which necessitated the scheme going before Parliament—that was to say, the subsequent withdrawal of the names, however obtained, did not prevent them from coming and asking the House to express its opinion upon it. That was in no sense a party opinion. The late Law Officers so advised the Member for Rotherham when he was Vice President, and it was his duty when he came into office, in 1895, to advise. Her Majesty's Government that that view was correct, la the Dauntsey case, to which reference had been made, there actually was an objection taken in the House, and the ultimate settlement of that scheme was in consequence of the objections which were taken in that House to the scheme so laid on the Table of the House. The Dauntsey case was an instance of the right which any persons who objected to a scheme had to have the opinion of the House taken. Therefore the Dauntsey case was a distinct authority in favour of the view which they urged ought to be followed by the Education Department. But there having been this unintentional hitch, and persons having been deprived of their constitutional rights, he did not think any course could be adopted except to put the parties exactly in the position they ought to have been, and to allow objections to the scheme, if any existed, to be raised in a constitutional manner. It was a tardy act of justice, but it was an act of justice that ought to be performed. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 22-1; Noes, 102.—(Division List, No. 164.)
  Main Question put, "That the Bill be now Head a Second time."
  The House divided:—-Ayes, 219; Noes, 88.—(Division List, No. 165.)
  Bill Read a Second time.
  SIR J. GORST SIR J. GORST moved, "That the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Law, Etc."
  MR. T. M. HEALYbegged to move to leave out the words "the Standing Committee on Law, Etc.," and to insert instead thereof the words "a Select Committee." He said it was most important that they should have evidence, and if the Bill should be referred, as proposed, to the Grand Committee on Law, no evidence could be taken. ["Hear, hear!"] It was admitted that the original signatures to the petition were obtained not only by fraud, but by gross misrepresentations. Evidence on that point ought to be taken. The statements made on the other side had been controverted. The very fact that it was alleged that the motive which actuated the Government was that this was a question of hardship, called for evidence. At least, let them have evidence as to hardship. Then there was the question of precedent to be explained. Whenever it was proposed to refer some small Irish Bill to a Grand Committee, the First Lord of the Treasury got up and said, "You call this a small Bill, but it involves questions of the most enormous importance." They ought now to inquire whether, after the scheme had become the law of the land, under which parties had got vested rights, it should be set aside by ex pant facto legislation. The Member for Rotherham said there was a precedent, and the Attorney General controverted that and said there was no precedent. It was very remarkable that they should get different advice from the two Front Benches, and yet they were asked to rush the Bill through at railroad speed. They must get at the facts, and not legislate in the dark. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. HERBERT LEWISseconded the Amendment, and said that if evidence was not taken a grave injustice might be done to the people of Berriew. It was said that there had been a total misrepresentation of the facts. He had seen a document from 12 persons who signed the petition against the scheme, and what did they say? They said: —
  "We, the undersigned, hereby declare that we were induced to petition against the Berriew Bill because we were told that it would involve a rate."
  Instead of taking money from the parish it would take money from the townships
  780
  and put it into the parish. Under these circumstances it was necessary there should be an investigation.
  Question, "That the words 'the Standing Committee on Law, Etc.,' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 210; Noes, 95,—(Division List, No. 166.)
  Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Law, Etc.

  LAW OF EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL CASES) BILL.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved, "That this Bill be now Read a Second time." He said he would not detain the House very long, but, as an important change in the law was involved — ["hear, hear!"] — he thought the Bill ought not to be again brought before the House without a statement of the grounds on which it was based. The subject was mooted 30 years ago or more, and during that time public opinion had been maturing. He did not wish to anticipate any arguments that might be advanced against the views he was about to lay before the House; but it was his honest conviction that not only in Great Britain, but in all civilised countries where the question had been discussed, and especially where there had been a change in the system of the law, it was the almost universal opinion that it was absolutely necessary, for the acquittal of innocent persons and the conviction of guilty persons, that the prisoner should be allowed to give evidence. ["Hear, hear!"] We had now for a considerable time been under two systems, and the opponents of the Bill themselves admitted that it was not possible for the two systems to continue, that we ought to admit we had been wrong in allowing prisoners to give evidence, in any cases, or that we ought to make the system uniform, and allow prisoners to give evidence, at their own desire, in any case. Between the years 1872 and 1895 from 25 to 30

  781
  Acts of Parliament had been passed relating to all kinds of offences. He could justify the Bill by reference to those Acts of Parliament alone, and he could show that in respect to those Acts no distinction could be drawn between the offences in which prisoners were now allowed to give evidence and those in which they were still prevented from giving evidence. No doubt hon. Members were alive to the absurdities of the present system. They had been pointed out by many authorities connected with the criminal law. He would content himself with one or two prominent cases, though he could mention 40 or 50. In trial for libel, if the question was whether the libel was or was not written by the defendant, the defendant could give evidence. But if a mail were charged with sending a threatening letter, or with forgery, or with an attempt to extort, money by writing letters, the defendant could not give evidence. Then, as to fraud, it was perfectly well known that exactly the same issues were tried in civil actions for fraud and in indictments for fraud and conspiracy. He could quote 10 or 11 cases within his own experience where sometimes the proceedings had been by way of indictment, and at others by way of civil action. The issues were identical, and the trial of them should be governed by the same conditions. But in the one case the defendant could not give any explanation of his conduct, and in the other he might go into the witness-box. As to cases of assault, there was a letter in The Times by Sir H. Poland, who, everyone would agree, was one of the greatest authorities on the criminal law, and who approached this question from an impartial point of view. Sir H. Poland pointed out that this absurd condition existed— that a man charged under the Criminal Law Amendment Act with a criminal assault could give evidence, while a man charged with a common assault could not give evidence. Again, in a charge of arson accused could not give evidence; but the man who was charged with a crime the moral guilt of which was the same— namely, with setting fire to his house in order to make a claim against an insurance company—could give evidence. He could multiply these instances four or five-fold, in which the same issues of moral guilt were raised,
  782
  and in which there was no reason why evidence should not be given by the persons charged. In fact, he believed that it would lead to the acquittal of innocent persons in cases where they had been unjustly charged. And at this point he would mention another anomaly removed by the Bill—the anomaly which prevented a wife from giving evidence for her husband. The absurdity of this rule was well known. He had known cases where a man and woman had been living together as man and wife, though they had not gone through the ceremony of marriage, and where the woman had been allowed to give evidence for her paramour; whereas, where there had been a lawful marriage, the wife was not allowed to give evidence on behalf of her husband. A greater absurdity could not be suggested. When he had pressed this question on public opinion he had often been asked, Do you know of any cases in which innocent persons had been convicted? He honed that the cases were rare, but he was perfectly convinced that they did exist, and in many cases had occurred, because innocent persons had not been able to give evidence. The late Lord Chief Justice had a strong opinion on this matter, and he would quote a case which had been commented on in connection with him. An elderly gentleman—whose name need not be mentioned publicly—who had long been in business, was charged with fraud in connection with a company, was indicted before Baron Pollock, was tried and convicted, and underwent six weeks or two months' imprisonment. After that a civil action was brought and tried before the late Lord Coleridge, the plaintiff being represented by Sir Charles Russell, and the defendant by the present Attorney General. Sir C. Russell opened powerfully a case of fraud, which was apparently unanswerable, and the late Chief Justice more than once suggested whether there could be any answer. Nevertheless, the case for the defence was opened, and the person who had been convicted and imprisoned was examined in the box, with the result that the Lord Chief Justice completely changed his opinion on that man's evidence alone, and the jury stopped the case, saying that there was no fraud of any kind. When this subject was being debated in the House of Lords the late Lord Chief Justice called attention to the

  783
  case, and said that it confirmed him in the opinion that in the interests of innocent men this change should take place. Sir H. Poland stated that he could count not a few cases where there had been a failure of justice, because the defendant could not give evidence. But, what was more remarkable, he had it from Judges and from counsel, that in their opinion not a few persons would have been convicted under the very Acts he had mentioned if they had not been able to give evidence. In the Australian colonies, in Canada, in the United States—wherever the two systems had been in force—opinion was unanimously in favour of the proposed change in the law. He would ask those who wished to study this question to read a letter in The Times of June 6 last year, from one of the Judges in New South Wales, Sir William Windeyer. He said that he had had five years' experience of the new system, which he had approached with reluctance because he thought the opportunity of giving evidence might be a snare to nervous, innocent persons. But his opinion had completely changed, and he was now satisfied that it was not a snare at all, but that innocent persons, though nervous, had been able to show that they were innocent. This Judge added that, having tried a great many important cases, he would now be unwilling to try an important case in which the prisoner was not allowed to give his own account of the case. A series of questions were in 1877 propounded to the colonies, and to the United States, and, with one exception, the experience of Chief Justices and of Attorney Generals of States was favourable to the change, which they said, gave general satisfaction and occasioned no hardship or injustice to the prisoner. The House would agree that by what he had already said a strong case had been made out for a change in the law, so as to allow the person who knew most about the case to give evidence if he desired. He was sure the House would be influenced by the opinions on this subject of the very distinguished men who had passed away. The late Sir James Stephen altered his opinion in the latter part of his life, and expressed himself strongly in favour of this change; Lord Coleridge also expressed the strongest opinion in the like sense, and so had Lord Bramwell and Lord Selborne, and many
  784
  other distinguished lawyers. And, coming to living Judges, Lord Herschell had spoken most strongly in favour of the change; Mr. Justice Mathew, Mr. Justice Wills, Lord Justice Lopes—he might refer to almost every Judge on the Bench, for he knew no Judge who held a different opinion. Mr. Justice Mathew, at Manchester, used particularly strong language when, be said it seemed extraordinary to go on closing the mouth of the man who knew most about the matter. Mr. Justice Wills, who always strongly felt the responsibility resting upon him in trying prisoners, said that from his long experience he was of opinion that the ability to give evidence was an advantage to an innocent man, but not to the guilty man. What had been the Parliamentary history of the question? There had scarcely been a Session in which: such a Bill had not been read a Second time in the House of Lords and sent down to this House. He knew no public question which had excited so little opposition or so little adverse public criticism. The Bill was slightly different from those of former years. One important question arose at once; and that was whether or not prisoners, if they elect to give evidence, should be subjected to the ordinary cross-examination, and attempts were made by himself and others in earlier years to meet that point by inserting words to the effect that a man should not be cross-examined in regard to his past history unless it formed part of the chain of evidence in connection with the trial. He was opposed by many lawyers, including Lord Selborne and Lord Bramwell, who urged that it was not right to throw any immunity around a person accused. Upon principle, there was a great deal to be said for that view. He had asked many Judges whether they found that the power of cross-examination had worked hardly to the prisoner who had given evidence, and they one and all said it had not. It seemed better to have one uniform and simple code of law; and, speaking for those Courts of which he had had a long experience, he did not believe our Judges would ever allow the position of a prisoner to be prejudiced, or the licence of counsel to go too far in the matter of the examination or cross-examination of prisoners. He assured the House it was with regret that he had felt it necessary for Parliamentary reasons

  785
  to exclude Ireland from the operation of the Bill. He wished to be frank. He was extremely anxious to see this amendment of the law passed—[cheers]—and knowing what the difficulties were in regard to Parliamentary procedure, he was afraid he was influenced rather by considerations of prudence than by his own opinion as to what would be best. He wished to say as publicly as he could to hon. Members from Ireland that he dissociated himself altogether from a suggestion once made in this House— [Mr. T. M. HEALY: "By Lord James!"]—that prosecutions were conducted in Ireland in n way which was not as fair to the prisoner as in England. It was not for any reason of that kind that he had felt it necessary to exclude Ireland. But he did not discount the powers of eloquence and amendment of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, and he felt, therefore, that, unwilling as he was to draw any distinction between the two countries, the more prudent course was to bring in the Bill in its present shape. He believed the change proposed was urgently demanded, and he was satisfied that the extension of the privilege which now existed under 26 Acts of Parliament to other similar offences was in the interests of the innocent, and would lead to justice being done. Since the Bill was introduced a few weeks ago he had received a very large number of letters and representations from all classes of people in the community, from most important bodies, such as the Incorporated Law Society, as well as from men of all shades of opinion politically, in favour of the change and not a single objection or protest against it. He begged to move the Second Reading.
  MR. J. LLOYD MORGANproposed to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months." He said that, whatever might be said for or against the Bill, it could not, be seriously denied that there was a strong body of opinion at the Bar, amongst men who had had extensive experience in the criminal Courts, entirely opposed to the views which the Attorney General had put before the House. Compared with former Bills this was by far the worst which had ever been introduce upon the subject. Most other Bills showed
  786
  some consideration for the prisoner, but this Bill did not. The present practice was perfectly satisfactory. If uniformity was to be introduced it ought to be in the direction, not of extending the facilities to prisoners to give evidence, but of curtailing them. There had been no serious demand for a change in the law. The law was respected, for 80 per cent, of the persons charged on indictments were convicted. The Bill would be made use of by prosecuting counsel and solicitors to force a prisoner into the witness-box in order to supply a missing link in the chain of evidence for the prosecution. The principle of our criminal law was the assumption of a man's innocence until he was proved to be guilty, but this Bill would, entirely alter that. When a prisoner went into the witness-box he would be cross-examined about all kinds of things, and elements of prejudice would be introduced into the case which would be enlarged upon before the jury, and the prisoner would run the additional risk of making a very unfavourable impression. He might wish to conceal something, although not guilty of the offence with which, he was charged, and it would then be urged to the jury that he had not told the truth. The jury would balance the probabilities of the case as they did at present at a nisi prius case. A man might for various reasons say what was not true in the course of his evidence, but that was no reason why he should be convicted of an offence of which he was innocent. The late Lord Justice Lush used to say that a prosecuting counsel in this country ought to act in a semi-judicial capacity. He agreed with that, but he had been long enough in the profession to know that that principle had been very much departed from, and there was an amount of heat put into prosecutions in these days which he could not help thinking would astonish Lord Justice Lush if he were alive. ["Hear, hear!"] Then, if the prisoner did not go into the witness-box damaging inference would be drawn, and a jury would very often convict a man simply for that reason. He referred to a case in which a serious charge impugning his honour was brought against a Member of that House, and he brought an action for libel to vindicate his character. That Gentleman was advised by his counsel

  787
  not to go into the witness-box because it was not part of his business to refute the charges, inasmuch as those charges had to be established by the person who made them. What did the judge and jury do in that case? They drew their conclusion from his absence from the witness-box, which was positively fatal to him, and had the most injurious consequences on his reputation. [An HON. MEMBER: "That was not a criminal case."] There was the same objection whether it was a criminal or a civil case, and therefore the argument was a sound one. They were not dealing only with assizes, at which a Judge would preside, but with Quarter and Petty Sessions, and though his personal experience of Quarter Sessions did not justify him in making any suggestion that Chairmen of Quarter Sessions would not act fairly, he had one or two cases in his mind in which he should have been sorry to see the prisoner at the mercy of certain Chairmen of Quarter Sessions. There was a case about a year ago where the Chairman did not even allow the jury to say if the prisoner was guilty or not, but merely asked them whether the man had taken the article with the theft of which he was indicted. That case came before the Court of Crown Cases Reserved, and the conviction was quashed. What chance would a prisoner have at the hands of a man like that? He had had a conversation some time ago with a learned Judge of the High Court, who informed him that he never looked at the record of previous convictions until the verdict of the jury had been given, because, said he, if he knew that the prisoner had been previously convicted on several occasions it might unconsciously influence him in summing up the case to the jury. But under the operation of this Bill a prisoner might be examined as to his previous record and character, and the jury would thus be informed of facts of which even a Judge thought it best to remain in ignorance, and this would very likely influence the jury in their verdict, and a prisoner might be deprived of the benefit of the doubt. The result of this Bill, if it became law, would be that juries would convict prisoners on side issues, whereas now there was one plain question before them, namely, whether the prosecution had proved the guilt of the person charged beyond all reasonable
  788
  doubt. He had a strong objection to the Bill. It would lead to endless perjury. Day after day, in the police courts, the Courts of Quarter Sessions, and Assizes, men would go into the witness-box and commit perjury and no one would take the slightest notice of it, and that would have a most injurious public effect. In his opinion this change in the law would not have the effect of saving the innocent people from being convicted, and he did not believe it would increase the number of convictions. He concluded by moving the rejection of the Bill.
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILLseconded the Amendment. The Attorney General, he said, spoke again and again of the prisoner electing to give evidence, and of a privilege being bestowed on the prisoner. In form the Bill was permissive, but it was obvious that in practice it would be compulsory. The Attorney General had also referred to the series of Acts, beginning in 1872, which ran counter to the general rule of law in admitting the prisoner as a witness. If those Acts were examined, he thought it would be found that, with one or two exceptions, the offences to which they related were far more analogous to torts than to crime. The Conspiracy Act of 1875 deliberately drew a distinction between the two systems, which the Attorney General said could not go on together without absurdity. By the Conspiracy Act it was provided, in regard to a breach of contract, that a prisoner might be a witness, but with regard to offences to which Section 7 related—namely, intimidation, that same provision was not made. He admitted in the abstract the proposition that the prisoner should be a competent witness on his own behalf was most plausible, but sufficient consideration had not been given to show how this abstract principle would work in the common experience of the Courts. The Attorney General quoted the authority of distinguished lawyers; but with all respect to them, he should like to ask what was the opinion of the rank and file of the men who practised at the criminal Bar? This question had been much discussed in the robing rooms and at the Bar messes, and, from observation and inquiry, he did not hesitate to say that the large majority of the rank and file of

  789
  men who practised at the criminal Bar were opposed to the change now proposed. Their opinion was at least as much entitled to consideration as the opinion of great and eminent Queen's Counsel, who very rarely condescended to visit a criminal Court at all, and when they did, sometimes displayed a great ignorance of criminal procedure. But the advocates of this reform were not agreed on the very crux of this case, which was: — "Is the prisoner to be subjected to ordinary cross-examination, or are restrictions to be put on that cross-examination?" That was not a detail which could be settled in Committee. It was the very essence of the case, and went to the root of the matter. The public at large, and the majority of the members of the Bar who advocated the reform, did not contemplate that the prisoner, when in the box, should be subjected to the same kind of cross-examination as the ordinary witness was subjected to. Reference had been made to the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir F. Lockwood). But the hon. and learned Gentleman had said on a previous occasion that "prisoners ought to be protected from cross-examination as to previous convictions," because if this protection were not afforded the old offender could never get off. Apparently the Government were themselves at odds on this question, because when the Lord Chancellor introduced his Bill last year there were very material restrictions on the cross-examination of the prisoner. Had the Lord Chancellor changed his opinion since last year, and if so, on what grounds? He admitted that the Bill of the Government was a perfectly logical Bill. What the public did not understand, and what the Bar did not understand, was this. There was no half-way house between excluding a prisoner from the witness-box altogether and submitting his evidence to the same tests as those which were applied to an ordinary witness. Speaking last year in the House of Lords the Lord Chief Justice said that where once a witness was admitted to give evidence on oath it was possible, by the artificial restraint which the Bill sought to impose, to protect him from the ordinary tests. On what grounds had the Bill been put before the House? On the ground that persons who were guilty sometimes escaped. If that was so, he conceived
  790
  that persons were occasionally acquitted who would, under this Bill, if they went into the box, be convicted. Was the Bill for the protection of the innocent, or supposed innocent, persons? They were told that the prisoner's mouth was closed. That was an exploded fallacy. Under the practice now established in England the prisoner had four distinct opportunities of telling his own story: (1) when arrested; (2) when formally charged at the police court; (3) at the end of the magisterial proceedings; and (4) upon the trial itself. But to submit to examination and cross-examination would not necessarily be advantageous to an innocent, man. The advantage would not depend nearly so much on the prisoner's innocence as upon his coolness and self-possession. Coolness and self-possession were largely associated with education, and therefore the Bill would give to the educated man a great advantage over the uneducated man. It was the ignorant man charged with a criminal offence who most needed to be guarded. It must have been observed by every counsel who had practised in the criminal courts that an ignorant man, however innocent such a man might be, had a great tendency to tell lies about comparatively immaterial facts. He generally invented some stupid fiction, easily exposed by cross-examination or contradicted by direct testimony. When such a man was exposed by cross-examination the discredit attached to part of the story which he had invented would be extended by the jury to the whole of his case, and he would stand in very serious jeopardy of being convicted, although innocent. The learned Attorney General had supported this Bill on another ground. He had talked about the hardship under the existing law of excluding the evidence of prisoners and their wives, and he had told again the story with the edifying moral, of the man who escaped from the gallows because the woman with whom he lived was not his wife. These stories had been in circulation in Bar robing rooms and Bar messes any time these last fifty years. He should like to put against them the deliberate opinion of a gentleman who—now that Sir H. Poland had retired—might be said to have had as large an experience at the Criminal Bar as any man in the country, Mr. Horace Avory, who, speaking of his

  791
  experience of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and analogous Acts, said he had never known a person to be improperly convicted because of his inability to go into the witness-box, and when prisoners who had given evidence had been convicted, the same result would have followed if they had not given evidence on their own behalf. ["Hear, hear!"] He himself objected mainly to the Bill because of what he believed would be its effect on the Bench and the magistracy of the country. This change must impair the dignity of the Bench, and if he was told that that after all was only a grace or ornament, and not a matter of first importance, he joined issue, and said that the dignity of the Bench was inextricably involved with its impartiality. If this Bill became law, in numberless cases the Judges must cross-examine prisoners. From time to time he had seen a Judge on the Bench wrestle with witnesses for the defence, and with scarcely a pause proceed to sum up. This was not an edifying scene, but such scenes would be mutiplied a thousandfold if this Bill became law, with the aggravating circumstances that the person with whom Judge or Magistrate would have to wrestle would not be the prisoner's friend, but the prisoner himself. The bulk of prosecutions—or Court briefs as they were called—in this country were conducted by inexperienced counsel, and in many cases by young men just called to the Bar. The defence was almost invariably conducted by an able and experienced counsel acquainted with every twist and turn in criminal practice, and specially skilled in playing on the jury. The prisoner under this Bill would go into the box, and with the skilful aid which his counsel would be able to supply, tell his story and make a great impression on the jury. Then the young man just called to the Bar, to whom the Court brief had been entrusted, rose to cross-examine the prisoner. It was obvious to everybody in Court that he was incompetent to do so. His cross-examination was not only useless, but, with the ill-luck which dogged the steps of the inexperienced cross-examiner, he strengthened the impression, already favourable to the prisoner, made in the minds of the jury. The interests of justice must not be defeated, and the Judge would be obliged himself
  792
  to assume the function of prosecutor and cross-examine the prisoner exactly in the way most familiar to him while a counsel at the Bar. Such scenes must be reproduced again and again at the Central Criminal Court, the Assizes, and Quarter Sessions throughout the country, and when that had become established, the dignity of the Bench would have disappeared, and with its dignity its impartiality. This change in the law was bitterly opposed by the Nationalist Members from Ireland, mainly, he believed, because of the exasperated feelings between class and class in that country due to the long-continued existence of the land question. But the labour question had often caused bitter feelings between class and class in England. He believed we were on the verge of considerable conflict in the Criminal Courts with regard to labour questions and the law of conspiracy. He hoped Labour Members would seriously consider the effect of this change in the law in regard to labour questions, and whether it was in the interests of justice that members of trades unions, who might be ignorant men, should be compulsorily put into the box and "pulled about" either by a magistrate at Quarter Sessions or Petty Sessions. If the change proposed by this Bill was made at all, it ought not to be made by itself, but be part of a larger attempt to reform the criminal law of this country. We were making still further approximation of criminal to civil proceedings. In civil proceedings there should be a Court of Criminal Appeal in this country. In all the countries in which the prisoner was a competent witness, there was, as far as his memory served him, a Court of Criminal Appeal. He should divide the House against the Second Reading of this Bill, because he submitted that the learned Attorney General had not made out a case for the Bill, and, still more, because he felt that the inevitable effect of the Bill would be to impair the great and historic position of the Bench of this country. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. EDWARD CARSONsaid that on this important question he differed in opinion from many whose opinions he highly valued. The Bill proposed a revolution in the criminal law, and he felt bound to state his own views, to act upon them, and, as

  793
  far us they were of airy use, to give the House the benefit of his experience, He felt indebted to the learned Attorney General for one observation he made. He stated the reason why he excluded Ireland from the great benefits which were to be brought about by the changes in the criminal law proposed by this Bill, and he was glad he dissociated himself from the very unworthy attack made by a late Member of the House, now a Member of a more august assembly, when a Bill similar to this was before the House in 1888. He, himself, was not then a Member of this House, but, in the course of his profesional duties he had considerable experience in the administration of justice in Ireland— ["hear, hear!"]—and he must say that the remarks of the hon. and learned Member, as he then was, showed about the same knowledge of the administration of the criminal law in Ireland as he had courage in carrying out his convictions in that House. He, himself, since then, had had an opportunity of contrasting the administration of the criminal law in Ireland with the administration of the criminal law in England, and he could most honestly and truly say that, if there was any difference as regarded fairness of trial, the difference was certainly in the prisoners' favour in Ireland as compared with England. In ordinary cases in Ireland he had seldom, if ever, known a Crown prosecutor do what was almost invariably done in this country—namely, make two speeches against the prisoner. He was glad that the Bill was not to apply to Ireland, but thought that the reason assigned for that by the Attorney General was a most shadowy one. In 1888, when a similar Bill was brought in, the present Solicitor General expressed the opinion that it would be a mistake to exclude Ireland and to have one law for one part of the kingdom and another law for mother part. Before the introduction of this Bill the hon. and learned Member for Louth asked whether Ireland would be included in its operation, and the Attorney General replied that he would consult the Attorney General for Ireland. The result was that Ireland was excluded. It looked very much as if the Government had been frightened by the threats of the hon. and learned Member for Louth, and a Government with a majority of 150
  794
  ought surely not to be influenced by such a cause. The administration of the criminal law had largely contributed to the welfare of the country and the diminution of crime. The administration of the law had been effective, and the law itself had been respected. That being the case, they ought to be very cautious about introducing changes in it. He did not believe that there was any public demand for this Bill, and denied that the great body of the profession were in favour of it. Law Officers and ex-Law officers and Judges might approve it, but even among such high authorities opinions differed. In 1879 there was a Commission to consider the subject, consisting of very able English and Irish Judges, and they reported that they were divided in opinion as to the policy of so important a change in the law. Yet in that House, Law Officers had frequently asserted that this was a matter upon which practically everybody agreed. The present Bill went much further than any previous proposals of the kind, In fact the rate at which Ministerial attempts to make changes in the criminal law progressed was rather astonishing. The Bill was a most insidious one; it was put forward as a Measure to enable an innocent man to give evidence, and the Attorney General, with a persuasiveness against which it behoved them to be on their guard, had said that no prisoner need give evidence if he should not wish to do so. That, of course, might be the intention of the framers of the Bill, but as a matter of fact, if the Measure passed, every man on trial for his life would be obliged to present himself for examination and cross-examination; for if he should not do so the prosecuting counsel would at once say, "I am told that from the facts given in evidence you will be asked to draw a different inference from that which I ask you to draw." But who can tell us better than the prisoner himself what inference ought to be drawn, and why is he not called? In making this change they would really be introducing the French system, under which a prisoner was not only cross-examined by the prosecuting counsel, but also by the Judge. The Attorney General said that the proposed system prevailed with success in our colonies. In the Colonial Acts, which he had been able to refer to, he found safeguards

  795
  which were not found in this Bill. In South Australia, for example, it was provided: —
  "that no presumption of guilt shall be made from the fact of such person electing not to give evidence. The Crown shall not be entitled to a right of reply by reason of such person having given evidence."
  In New Zealand the law was that if a person charged with an offence should refrain from giving evidence or calling the husband or wife as a witness, such person should not be prejudiced thereby, and no comment prejudicial to him or her should be based thereon. If he was right in saying that this Bill would make it necessary for the prisoner in every case to give evidence, let them consider what that would lend to. The wealthy prisoner would be represented by able counsel, and an able solicitor would have considered whether it was in his favour or against him that he should be produced, and if he were produced, would take care that he got fair play. The educated prisoner would probably be able to think out in his own mind the evidence he should give and the proper method of giving it. But the man for whom he pleaded was the poor, uneducated prisoner, who was not protected by counsel or solicitor. He could conceive nothing that would lead to greater injustice than that an ignorant, undefended man should without a moment's notice be requested to present himself in the witness-box, and, having told his illiterate rigmarole, to subject himself to cross-examination by the counsel for the Crown. How would this unfortunate man go into the witness-box? A primâ facie case must have been made out before the Magistrate; and a true Bill must have been found against him by the Grand Jury; and he would go into the box with the knowledge that unless there had been suspicious circumstances he never would have found himself in that predicament at all. Did the House believe that in these circumstances he would get as fair a chance as he had under the present, system? Unlike previous Bills, this Measure in no wise limited the right of cross-examination; and every one of the suspicious circumstances surrounding a prisoner would be paraded one after another by the cross-examining counsel. The fact that a man had been previously convicted might be the real
  796
  reason why he was arrested, and he did not in such a case think a prisoner was likely to get a fair trial if counsel were able to cross-examine him with regard to his former offences. The question as to the effect of a prisoner's evidence would depend vastly more upon whether he made what was called a good witness than upon whether he was innocent or guilty, and an ignorant prisoner would find himself at the greatest disadvantage from the fact that he was unable properly to express himself. Many instances were known in which men had so expressed themselves as to leave their statements open to an inference entirely different to that which they meant to convey. The question of impropriety of expression had put many a witness both in civil and in criminal cases at the greatest possible disadvantage, and in regard to confessions made by prisoners on or before arrest. Constructions had very often been put upon expressions used by prisoners which upon mature consideration and further investigation they had been held not properly to bear. Let them take the case of a prisoner on his trial for his life. What must be the nervous feeling of that man as he walked out of the dock to the witness-box, knowing that the question whether he was to be hanged on that day month depended upon the evidence he was about to give? It was impossible for any ordinary man to have complete control of his senses or to do himself justice in such circumstances. The Attorney General said the Judge would take care that the limits of cross-examination were not exceeded. But cross-examination was not a matter depending upon the Judge; it was conducted upon well-defined rules; and they must under the Bill have cross-examination in its ordinary sense or not at all. Everybody had been agreed up to this year that if this great change were to be conceded at all, it must be accompanied with very great safeguards to the man who submitted himself to cross-examination. But now they were to have cross-examination unlimited as to every detail in his past life, which might prejudice the jury. As had been said, it would be looked upon as an outrage by every Judge if cross-examining counsel referred to the calendar of previous convictions against any prisoner. What was to be said of a weak case presented by

  797
  the Crown being supplemented by the previous criminal history of the man supposed to be having a fair trial? The only result of all this was that they were putting an end to the theory that had been the great safeguard of the citizens of this country for centuries—namely, that the Crown must independently prove their case, and that if they were, not able to do so the prisoner was to have the benefit of the doubt. Assuming what he himself did not believe, that the prisoner would have the slightest protection in regard to cross-examination from the Judge, what did the Attorney General say to those cases in which serious trials were heard—and their number were increasing daily under Acts of Parliament—before magistrates alone? In those cases they would not often have the skilled and responsible counsel who, no doubt, felt a sense of his responsibility and the obligation thrown upon him in the investigation of the trial he was called upon to conduct, but they would have practitioners in out-of-the-way places not in the least guided by public opinion, and who had not got the same high principles of honour in relation to the Bar which had always been traditional in Great Britain and Ireland. They would have these practitioners almost utterly irresponsible, and certainly not responsible to public opinion, allowed all the privileges and licence of cross-examination, not according to the rules laid down by the High Court, but according to the sweet will of the particular magistrate who happened to try the case. ["Hear, hear!"] That would most assuredly be a matter which before many years were over, if the Bill passed in its present form, would bring the law into the contempt and hatred of the people of this country. ["Hear, hear!"] Take the case of a murder trial where the very life of a man depended upon the truth and falsity of the various statements that had been put forward. He asked the Attorney General and other members of the legal profession, what would be their feelings when they were bringing into play against an unfortunate man who might be hanged that day month all the skill and artifices of the trained lawyer in the cross-examination of a man tried on such a charge? ["Hear, hear!"] He thought counsel would look upon such obligations us were thus thrown upon
  798
  him with horror and that the country would revolt against any such practice being introduced into the criminal law. He hoped this matter would really be reconsidered. There was also, to his mind, the great objection that a prisoner submitting himself to cross-examination would leave himself open to be also examined by the Judge. No one had greater confidence in the Judges of this country and of Ireland than he; but after all they were human beings. It was frequently the case that, after a trial had proceeded a short time, the Judge made up his mind more or less in a particular direction and, while the jury might discard questions put on one side or the other or the inferences to be drawn from the answers, they would never do so in the case of the questions put by a Judge, because they rightly believed he was put there to do justice between the parties. If they were to subject a prisoner to this method of cross-examination and investigation of the facts by the Judge, how far would they be away from the French system, which they in this country detested? ["Hear, hear!"] Having had considerable experience in the Criminal Courts for many years, he declared that he had never yet seen what he could call to mind as any suggested miscarriage of justice by reason of a prisoner not being allowed to be called as a witness. ["Hear, hear!"] There might be a stray case here and there, for nobody supposed their system, or any that could be invented would be absolutely perfect. But were they sure these cases would not be vastly outnumbered in a short time, when the prisoner was subjected to cross-examination in matters as to which he had never been so subjected before? He hoped the House would pause before allowing such a momentous change to be made. As to the clause which not only enabled but compelled the wife of a prisoner to give evidence, suppose a man was put on trial for his life, would the country really expect that his wife was to come up and do her best to have him hanged? If a poor woman in this sore trouble came up and stated something that was false in order to try and save her husband, would the country tolerate that she should afterwards be prosecuted and sent to gaol for thus trying to assist him? Far better was it that an occasional guilty man or woman should get

  799
  off than that their law should be strained to that extremity. ["Hear, hear!"] That was the second, and to his mind, the serious part of the Bill. Not only had it never been proposed in that House, but it had never been recommended by any Commission of Judges or others, that he was aware of, and it was certainly a, somewhat startling fact that it had remained for a so-called Conservative Party to be the first to put forward these proposals in so extreme and stringent a manner, making revolutionary changes in the law. Their law had worked well; it had been effective and respected, and he did not think this Bill would be any improvement. But that was not the question. There was no public demand for this change; they were not certain what the result would be, and, at all events, when they had good laws which were working well and justly, let them pause before they made a change and took a leap in the dark which might be disastrous. ["Hear, hear!"]
  On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,
  MR. THOMAS BUCKNILLsaid it was not because he thought that, in this country, according to the present administration of their law, innocent people were convicted, or that guilty people were very often acquitted, that he spoke in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill. It. was because he thought there was a certain feeling in the country that the administration of the law was not as perfect as it might be, and that, by the admission of the evidence of accused persons, when they so desired it, not otherwise, the administration of the criminal law would be improved. He was opposed to the compulsion of calling a husband or a wife of an accused person to give evidence, but for the moment he confined his remarks to whether the accused person should or should not be allowed to give evidence in his own favour it' he so desired it. He did not believe that the innocent man who got into the witness-box of his own free will would ever be caught or entrapped or bullied by either counsel or Judge into admitting a state of circumstances which was not true. But if perchance, by nervousness or ignorance, an accused person should not do
  800
  himself or herself justice, he thought a jury would be sufficiently discriminating to know the difference between a stupid and confused witness who was telling the truth and a lying prevaricator who, being guilty, was not telling the truth. He was not afraid of an innocent person being caught, but if a guilty individual should get off by his or her own cleverness and devices and perjury, better that a great deal than that an innocent person's mouth should be shut when by his opening it the whole truth might be known. ["Hear, hear!"] Let them take the case of a man arrested for being in possession of stolen goods. The police would ask him, "Where did you get the goods?" and he might say, "I bought them." "Of whom?" "I do not know his name, but I bought them at such and such a place." It was almost incredible that our law allowed the constable to give the statement made by the accused person to him and did not allow the accused person in the Court to say anything on oath with respect to that statement. ["Hear, hear!"] Again, there was the case of obtaining goods by false pretences. In such a case the Judge had to lay down to the jury that most technical rule which was called a statement of a non-existing fact. The accused was obliged to listen to the prosecutor and was not able to give his own version of the story. In most cases the best evidence was to be obtained from the person who stood in the dock, but who, at the present time, to use an expression found in a book well known, was law gagged. ["Hear, hear!"] Writing to The Times last year, Sir William Windeyer maintained that everybody in the Australian Colonies was now convinced that it was a good Amendment of the law to allow accused persons to give evidence. In the United States of America accused persons were permitted to give evidence on their own behalf, and the system had been found to work well. Why should not the change be tried here? Personally, he believed the alteration would work beneficially. No greater master of the criminal law had been known for the last 30 or 40 years than the late Recorder of London—Russell Gurney; he was a man of infinite wisdom and of absolute justice and tenderheartedness, and, speaking in the House of Commons in 1876, he said he had

  801
  often felt when he entertained doubts about a case that they would have been entirely removed if he could have put, in no unkind or ungenerous spirit, a few questions to the prisoner. He would not however, give a Grand Jury, who were an inquisitorial body, find as a rule not lawyers, power to interrogate prisoners; and another important point was how far they should allow prisoners to be cross-examined at the sweet will of anybody engaged in a case. Moreover, he did not think a prisoner, if he presented himself for examination, ought to be cross-examined as to any previous conviction. ["Hear, hear!"] Again, as in the case of nearly all the United States of America, no observation should be permitted to be made by the presiding Judge prejudicial to a prisoner because he did not choose to offer to give evidence. There was another part of the Bill to which he took some exception. He did not understand the Government taking such a revolutionary step as to compel a husband to give evidence against his wife or the wife against her husband. He admitted that if they treated the matter logically it should be so, but the law was not always logical. [Cheers.] If they were to complain of anomalies there would be little hope for some of them. There was some nebulous safeguard, but they must do one thing or the other. To be logical, they would have to compel the husband and wife to give evidence against each other. Had the Attorney General changed his mind, and, if so, when did he do it? In 1894, in introducing a Bill for the prevention of cruelty to children, what did he provide? That in any proceedings against anyone under that Act the wife or husband would be "competent, but not compellable," to give evidence. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought that the proposal in the Bill would cause great misery and trouble in that class of society which sent most of the cases to Quarter Sessions and Assizes. He believed a great blot would be removed by allowing a man or woman, if they thought fit to do so, to give evidence. He should support the Second Reading in the hope that the words compelling the husband or wife to give evidence would be omitted.
  MR. VESEY KNOXsaid there was a grave difference of opinion among the Bar on this subject,
  802
  and he should not like to say on which side the balance of feeling lay. He was sorry that a larger number of Members were not present to hear the speech of the Member for Dublin University. The Bill, it was true, did not apply to Ireland, but it applied to the trial of Irishmen in England, and some most painful scenes had been witnessed at the trials of Irish prisoners before English Courts in that limited number of cases where prisoners were allowed to give evidence. In the vast majority of cases the fact that a prisoner was an Irishman told against him. [Ministerial cries of "No, no!"]
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: No, certainly not. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. KNOXsaid the jury watched the prisoner giving his evidence in his Irish way and accent, and there could not be a doubt that there was a prejudice. [Loud cries of dissent.] He could only say that that was his experience.
  MR. A. K. LOYD: It is exactly the other way.
  MR. KNOX: I can only speak from my own experience.
  MR. LOYD: Where? Name one instance.
  MR. KNOX: It is my experience that there is, to some extent, a prejudice against him on account of his race and nationality. The hon. and learned Member opposite, who had been in the position to try Irish prisoners, might have some difficulty in understanding—
  MR. DARLING: I never tried an Irishman, and was referring to case s of witnesses.
  MR. KNOXsaid he was referring to a case where an Irish prisoner might be called upon to give evidence, but it was hardly necessary to elaborate it. It would be a serious injury to prisoners in the vast majority of case s to be compelled to give evidence. If the object of criminal procedure was to obtain convictions this Bill would be a most powerful instrument in the hands of the authorities, but he could not admit that there was such a number of miscarriages of justice as would justify it. The police system was more efficient than it used to be, and year by year it was more difficult for a man to commit a crime and escape. Therefore, if there was an occasional miscarriage of justice—if a guilty man was occasionally not convicted—that evil would become less and less as the years

  803
  went on, and, at any rate, it was not one the removal of which was a sufficient ground for the passing of the Bill. It was said, on the other hand, that there were some cases in which innocent persons were convicted who would not have been convicted had they been able to give evidence. Cases of that kind were so exceedingly rare that they could not be regarded as an important consideration. But even if there were a few cases in which innocent persons might escape under the Bill, what the House had to consider was the balance of disadvantages; and he asserted that, if the Bill became law, a far larger number of innocent people would be convicted than were convicted under the present procedure. He had some intimate friends who, if they were accused of murder, however unjustly, and were allowed to go into the witness-box, would compel the jury to convict them of the crime. [Laughter.] They had a habit of shuffling and equivocating—[Ministerial laughter and cheers]—when they had to give evidence—though they were perfectly honest, and perfectly straightforward in ordinary conversation—that the jury would be forced to come to the conclusion that they were conceding facts very much to their discredit. That type of men, which was not uncommon, would be in the most serious peril if the Bill became law and they happened to be charged with any crime; and he ventured to think that it was not wise to make a change in the law which might lead to the conviction of men of crimes of which they were not guilty, simply because they were bad witnesses, and all for the reason that there was a certain proportion of cases where convictions could be obtained, and justly obtained, if the Bill became law. It was sometimes said that the present system grew up by accident. That was not historically correct. As a matter of fact, under the old English criminal procedure a prisoner could be examined under torture. In addition to that the prisoner could be examined in Court by the Judge. The cross-examination of prisoners by Chief Justice Jeffries during the Bloody Assize was such a scandal that it led to the establishment of the present system, under which the prisoner cannot be examined at all. He might be told that such a scandal was now impossible. He
  804
  admitted that it was unlikely that the Judges of the High Court would go too far in the examination of witnesses. But the Bill applied not merely to the High Court and the Courts of Quarter Sessions, but to the Petty Sessions Courts; and he hardly thought that any Member had such, confidence in the discretion, ability, and experience of the Justices of the Peace throughout England, that prisoners who went into the witness-box and were cross-examined by the Attorneys who practised in criminal matters in those Courts would not be unfairly treated. He might be told that in serious cases there would be an appeal from the conviction of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. But that was not a real answer to his argument. He thought the Bill would inevitably lead to consequences that were not contemplated by its promoters. It had been said that in the Colonies and in America some similar change had been made in criminal procedure; but he did not think the change had been quite so universal as had been represented. He challenged the Government to produce any law passed by an English-speaking country which allowed the examination and cross-examination of prisoners without restriction in anything like the same degree as was proposed by the Bill. In effect the House was being asked to adopt the Continental system. This Bill was sometimes discussed as though the prosecutions were always conducted under some sort of Treasury supervision. In Ireland that was so; but in England, in the majority of cases, the prosecutor was a private person with a personal grudge or spite against the prisoner, and a great desire to secure a conviction. In such circumstances, the counsel for the prosecutor, if he were to satisfy his client, would be obliged to press against the prisoner every question which he was legally entitled to ask. The Bill would require considerable amendment, if gross abuses in that direction were to be prevented. As to the provisions which made a husband and wife compellable witnesses in criminal cases, he did not think that it was likely to become law. The safeguard in Sub-section 3 —that no husband or wife should be compellable to disclose any communication from the spouse made during the married life—was quite illusory. In practice, though the Judge would warn husband or wife giving evidence that they

  805
  need not answer this or that question, the jury would draw an inference from refusal to answer: and the demeanour of the witness would practically disclose what it was desired not to reveal. Even where a man was guilty, it was an inhuman proceeding to make his guilt clear through the evidence of his wife. The ordinary procedure for the conviction of criminals was year by year becoming more efficient. If this Bill, which would revolutionise the whole procedure of the criminal court, and would violate the tenderest passions and sentiments of the human breast, were passed into law, it would produce in the long run, not a sympathy with crime, but a sympathy with the sufferings which the criminal had to endure, and that, would have the opposite effect to that which was desired by those in charge of the Bill. He hoped that this year, as in previous years, the further progress of the Bill would be defeated.
  SIR EDWARD CLARKEsaid that he did not rise to speak from any anxiety as to the future of the Bill. The support which these proposals had received during the last 20 years at least had been of growing strength, and in favour of the present Bill there was a practically unanimous judgment among all those who, whether in this country or in any other, had had the opportunity of seeing the practical working of the two systems under discussion. There was no country, outside this, in the civilised world where the practice had been adopted of allowing a person accused of crime the elementary justice of giving his own statement as to the facts, and where it had not been acknowledged that that system had led to the ascertainment of the truth. ["Hear, hear!"] In this country, where we had been trying for the last 25 years to mitigate and remove the last remaining barbarism of our criminal code, there was not to be found a Judge who did not acknowledge that by the change which had been made in 25 Acts of Parliament, with regard to certain classes of crime, the best means of securing truth had been adopted. [Cheers.]
  MR. LYTTELTON: There are three Judges to my own knowlege who disapprove of these proposals.
  SIR E. CLARKEsaid that he could not think who those Judges were: and, as far as he knew, the statement which he had
  806
  made was absolutely true. The latest utterance was that of Lord Justice Lopes, and that was one of the strongest expressions of opinion which had ever been made in favour of the proposals in the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] But he desired to speak on the Measure, because he trusted it was the last time on which it would be necessary to discuss in the House—[cheers, and cries of "No!"]— the principle of a change with regard to which he had felt very strongly for many years past. There were three hon. Members on the other side of the House who had spoken in opposition to the Bill. He was quite sure there was not one of them who would allow that his experience in criminal cases had been somewhat limited. He was quite sure they would allow that his own experience in criminal cases had been long and large, and had not been the experience of a prosecuting counsel, but of one who had had to represent the interests of the prisoner. Before he came into this House at all, when he first issued an address to a constituency asking them to return him to Parliament, he mentioned in that address this reform as one that he longed to be able to assist in passing. From that time, 17½ years ago, he had never ceased to help either Government in flying to push this matter forward; and he did not think he had ever envied the Attorney General until to-night, but he did envy him the opportunity of associating his name with one of the greatest reforms which could be effected in our Administration. [Cheers.] The three hon. Members opposite, who were comparative amateurs in this matter, had suggested all sorts of difficulties. There was an overwhelming answer to any such opposition, and it was this— that it could be proved that upon the administration of the law as it now stood the grievance did recur—he did not say frequently, but in many cases—of an innocent man being convicted because of the present strange and barbarous rule. He had again and again had to defend prisoners who he believed to be, and felt satisfied were, innocent, who remonstrated against the injustice of their not being allowed to make their own statements as to their own case. [Cheers.] A case was suggested to him by something said as to this most extraordinary fact, which revolts one, that if a man on his trial has

  807
  been living with a woman without being married to her, her evidence may save him, but if he has gone through the ceremony of marriage, and made the union a holy one, her evidence could not save him—she could not be called. In his own experience he secured the acquittal of a man—he could give the name—from a charge made against him at Sessions by proving that his wife was not his wife, but only living with him for a number of years without the sanction of marriage. That man would have been convicted to a certainty if he had been married to the woman. There was a case upon the records of the Courts which he had nothing to do with, but which, standing alone, should be sufficient to satisfy any Member of the House as to the absolute necessity of this alteration of the law. A clergyman was charged with committing a criminal offence in respect of some children. The only evidence that could be called besides himself really was his wife, and she could not be called; he was convicted, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment for each offence, the terms to be consecutive —that was to say, four years' imprisonment. He went to prison in November. The man, from prison, put before the Home Secretary reasons for his release. The Home Secretary declined to make any recommendation until the girls had been indicted for perjury. In the following April or May the girls were indicted for perjury. The jury found them guilty of perjury. Why? Because at that trial the man and his wife were the witnesses, and the girls who had given evidence at the previous trial could not be examined. The girls were convicted of perjury; the man was released from prison. He brought an action against his solicitor for want of care or judgment in defending him, but the question of his guilt or innocence was never tried in a case in which all persons could be heard, [Cheers.] So it came about that the man was convicted of a shameful offence because his mouth and that of his wife were closed; the children were convicted because they could not be heard when a charge of perjury was brought against them; and if it was possible, under any system of law, for so scandalous a thing as that to have taken place, surely it was time that some remedy should be applied. A case in which he appeared as counsel so
  808
  forced upon him the conviction that there was something wrong in the law, that he felt it was his duty never to rest, but to take every opportunity of securing its amendment. A man kept a small public-house in the outskirts of London. He was assisted by his wife and one servant. He sold it for £1,500; three bills were given at 6, 17 and 18 months for the value of the house. The first two Bills were duly paid; when the third bill became due the man who had given it was not able to meet it, and an action was brought against him upon the bill. He thereupon took out a summons at a police court against the man who had sold him the house for false representation; and the man was committed for trial for obtaining money by false pretences as to the value of the public-house. The case came on for trial at Clerkenwell Sessions, when it appeared that the only persons who could possibly have given evidence were the man himself and his wife. The servant had left the employment 12 months, before, and could not be found. In these circumstances Serjeant Ballantyne, who defended, had no evidence to offer. The man was convicted and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. Fortunately an action was pending on the third of the bills. He, as counsel, succeeded in getting the case advanced and tried early, but not so early but that this man had had four or live months of imprisonment, and he came up from prison to give evidence with his hair cropped and wearing the prison clothes. Then he and his wife were able to give evidence, and there was not a question about it. He got his verdict upon the Bill, and judgment was given in his favour. [Cheers.] Of course the Home Secretary released him, but the result was that for five or six months he went through all the horrors of a criminal conviction and its consequences which would never have taken place if there had been u reasonable law in this country that the man who was accused of a crime might be allowed to give evidence on his own behalf. [Cheers.] He could tell of another case which touched him almost as strongly, where a man was charged with setting his employer's place on fire. This man, for whom he had been counsel, had one Saturday afternoon left his employer's place, and a fire had then broken out, and it was discovered that petroleum had

  809
  been poured over the books of the firm. This man, who had been employed there for 28 years, was the only man who had a key of those premises, and the police could find no way in which, anybody else could have entered. It would have gone very hard with the man but for the fact that he had been in his own home, with his wife and a couple of children, the same evening. If the case had gone to a jury, however, there would have been no possibility of proving an alibi, and this man, of whose innocence he was absolutely certain, might have run great risk of being convicted. He had brought the facts to the knowledge of Mr. Poland, who was prosecuting, and Mr. Justice Hawkins, who was going to try the case, with the result that the case was not proceeded with because the Judge said it was not a case in which it would be safe to convict. But these were the dangers to which men were exposed every day in this country. [Cheers.] It was an experience of 30 years' work in practice in our Courts which induced him to speak with all the earnestness which he could possibly command in support of a Bill which he believed to be essential in order to render the administration of our criminal law right and fair. ["Hear, hear!"] Of course there were minor questions with regard to the cross-examination which should be allowed, with regard to the calling of the wife and husband, and so on; but those were matters which might be raised and dealt with in Committee. But for himself he would say he was grateful to the Government for having brought this Bill in in the simplest possible form, and he thought it would be greatly to the advantage of justice that the Bill should be passed in the form in which it was brought in. As to the question of cross-examination, the hon. and learned Member opposite had said that he knew perfectly honest people who had such a habit of shuffling and equivocation that if they were falsely accused they would get into trouble from their persistence in that uncomfortable habit. [Laughter.]
  MR. KNOX: I said in the witness-box.
  SIR E. CLARKE: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member often sees his friends in the witness-box. [Laughter.] A habit of shuffling and equivocation in the witness-box certainly did not suggest any great confidence in the
  810
  innocence of the people who were addicted to that habit. There was an idea that when innocent persons accused of crime came to give their evidence they might be so harassed by irrelevant and cruel cross-examination that they would suffer from it, and would be likely to be convicted. He believed that to be an entire delusion. He had had some experience in defending persons in criminal cases, and if he were defending a man who was guilty—[Laughter]—if by any chance he should unfortunately happen to be in that position—he would desire nothing better than that the man should be apparently cross-examined unfairly in regard to other matters. ["Hear, hear!"] Nothing would be more certain to procure his acquittal. [Laughter.] There was no one having experience from day to day in the conduct of trials, civil or criminal, who did not know that it was an immense advantage if the counsel on the other side went a bit too far and allowed the jury to get the idea that the man was being unfairly treated. If that idea existed the man was perfectly safe. In regard to the testimony of husband and wife, surely it was obvious that the wife ought to be allowed to give evidence in favour of her husband. He could not imagine that anybody could suggest that there was any sense or reason in the rule which at present existed to prevent a wife or huband from giving evidence in favour of the husband or wife. Why should not the wife or husband be called upon to give evidence against the person accused in criminal cases? He supposed the desire was to secure a true result. They did not hesitate to call, in criminal cases, the child against the father or mother; it was done every week. They could call upon the husband or wife to give evidence in the case of an offence committed by the wife against the husband, or the husband against the wife. They could not say that the wife might be a witness for the husband, but not against him, without introducing an inequality which obviously would be very difficult to deal with. The object of all administration of criminal justice was to secure the ascertainment of the true facts. At present we had a practice which had seemed to him again and again, when he had been engaged in great criminal cases, to be an absolute and complete mockery; there had been sitting in the dock somebody

  811
  who by the very hypothesis of the case was the person who might know most about the circumstances, inasmuch as the charge was brought against that person because he or she had been most immediately connected with the circumstances which were being investigated. Then our curious rule had been that the police looked about and had the person who appeared to be most immediately concerned in this matter arrested; and from that moment his or her mouth was shut. It had been said that the prisoner had an opportunity of making a statement. Really, that was a mockery. [Cheers.] The prisoner was charged at the police court, and there a statement was read out to him that anything he said would be taken down and used against him. In 99 cases out of a hundred, as a matter of course, nothing was said there, because it was not the real trial of the case, and if anything was said there he had the strongest feeling about using the statement as the conclusive statement of the defendant. It was most unfair to use it, because the evidence against that prisoner might be supplemented; and then, that which had been an honest statement from the point of view of the prisoner, viewing the case at the time, might appear to the jury to be an incomplete and imperfect statement when they came to deal with the whole case. It was said that the prisoner was allowed to make a statement, but the fact that that statement could not be tested by cross-examination deprived it of all weight with the jury. There had been experience during past years of statements made by prisoners with regard to matters upon which they had been charged. He doubted very much whether there was a case in which a statement made by a prisoner had procured an acquittal, but he felt certain that there were many cases—and he could name half-a-dozen at least—where, if the prisoner had been allowed to make a statement and to say, "I am prepared to answer any questions put to me," there would have been the acquittal of an innocent person. He did not speak on this matter as a theorist or as a doctrinaire. ["Hear, hear!"] Nor did he speak of it from the slightest regard to the question whether the Bill was brought forward by one Ministry or the other; but he knew that those who had large experience in this matter were all absolutely agreed.
  812
  [Cries of "Carson!"] He did not wish to say anything in the nature of disrespect of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin. But his right hon. Friend's experience had not been large in this country with regard to the defence of prisoners; and he was afraid that his opposition to this Bill was based on two grounds—first, that it was a bad Bill; and next, that it was not extended to the country to which he belonged. ["No!" and laughter.] But looking at the Bill as applicable to Great Britain, he believed they were practically unanimous with regard to it. Since Mr. Russell Gurney, 22 years ago, introduced a similar Bill, there had been a steady accumulation of judicial authority, and of the authority of those who practised in the Law Courts in its behalf. He had never looked on it as a question of legal opinion. Since the time when, more than 30 years ago, he had intrusted to him the responsibility of defending persons who might be innocent of the offences with which they were charged, there had been borne in upon him year after year the absolute, gross, and wicked injustice of forbidding the person against whom the charge was made from going into the witness-box, to face his fellow-countrymen who had to try him, and to tell in his own words the story and the circumstances out of which the accusation had grown. [Cheers.] He hoped, therefore, the Bill would pass. He was glad that it was a simple Bill, and he did not think that any qualifications were required. He trusted that the Attorney General would have the satisfaction—a distinction for which he envied him—of associating his name with the passing of a Bill which he believed would be the most valuable, most important, as it was the most imperative, administration of our criminal law. [Cheers.]
  MR. J. L. WALTONsaid that as one who had practical experience in the administration of the criminal law he concurred to a large extent with the observations of the last speaker. He doubted whether they could find in any quarter of the House a large body of opinion to dissent from the general abstract proposition which lay at the root of this proposal. Who could deny on lines of abstract justice that it was desirable the accused, who knew most about

  813
  the occurrences which led to his accusation, should have the opportunity to tell his own story, in regard to which he was the most competent, although not the most reliable, witness? As a proposition it was unassailable; but the difficulties arose in giving practical application to it. ["Hear, hear!"] The interesting and pathetic illustrations from the large repertoire of professional experience with which his hon. and learned Friend entertained the House were subject to this great disadvantage. He gave the House an account of the serious difficulties in which his own clients were placed when he found that he, as their counsel, was not in a position to place them in the witness-box. The difficulty in giving effect to the principle of the Bill did not arise when a prisoner was defended by able and accomplished counsel. It arose when they had to deal with an illiterate man who could not frame a statement in intelligible phrases, give a coherent narrative of the incidents in connection with which he was charged, and to whose untutored skill was left the task of rehabilitating himself after skilful and damaging cross-examination. The principle might be clothed with provisions which might obviate all his objections. Why were there not clauses providing for the representation of prisoners by counsel, insuring that they should be adequately examined, and providing that after the cross-examination (which might be addressed to immaterial topics and directed to prejudice their general credit) it should be the duty of some persons charged with the administration of justice to see that adequate explanation was given in regard to these matters, and, if necessary, that the prejudice which had been elicited should not be allowed to affect the issues upon which the prisoner's liberty depended? He knew of no Continental country where there was not provision for insuring the due examination, both of prisoners and witnesses. According to the law of Scotland no prisoner, however strong the case against him might be, or however trivial the charge, was left without the provision, at the public expense, of adequate representation by counsel, in order that no injustice might be done to him. If this Bill contained such provisions as these, he would be a supporter instead of an opponent of the Bill. As to making a prisoner's evidence
  814
  compulsory, would anyone who had had experience in the Courts question the practical operation of a permissive Measure of that kind? In the Divorce Court, where the issues were often as serious, painful, and disastrous as in the criminal Courts, the parties were available as witnesses in their own defence. But the common formulary in the Divorce Court, in which counsel announced the fact that the petition was uncontested, was an intimation to the presiding Judge that they were not in a position to put their clients into the box. This formulary, which was part of the ordinary procedure in the Divorce Court, would soon become the ordinary formulary of criminal Courts when the principle had once been recognised in the form suggested in the Bill and had been brought into practical operation. In both previous Bills there were safeguards which had been omitted from this. Why was a prisoner allowed to be asked whether or not he had been previously convicted? Was it proposed to let a common jury, composed of men unskilled in weighing evidence and excluding irrelevant matter, try a man, knowing he was a hardened criminal and had committed many other crimes? The moment it had been elicited that he had been convicted several times before, the issue would be a foregone conclusion. ["Hear, hear!"] The safeguard which protected prisoners from this question appeared in the Bill last introduced. Why was it. excluded from the present proposal? There was another new feature. In our civilisation the loyalty of a wife to her husband was a supreme duty imposed upon her by social canons. That duty was to be sacrificed in the interest of public duty under this Bill when she was summoned to support a charge against her husband. She might make a statement of fact which might insure his conviction. The whole question might turn on whether at a particular hour her husband was at home or not. She must either perjure herself by her answer, if the question were put to her, or involve ruin upon herself and her family. This terrible position for a wife did not arise to a married woman under the last Bill. Its appearance now was a blot, and while it remained part of the present Measure he should conceive it to be his duty to vote against it. This Bill could not rightly be called a

  815
  simple Measure, for it purported to effect a most important change in the criminal law, and a change so grave ought not to be made without safeguards and limitations.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire)said that as the Bill applied to Scotland he did not wish to remain silent. The principle of the Measure had been under the consideration of several of his predecessors, who had given their hearty assent to it, as he did himself. The practice in Scotland might, he thought, allay some of the apprehensions of hon. Member's opposite. Several of them were afraid of the prejudice which they believed would be caused against a prisoner who should refuse to go into the box and offer his testimony. In Scotland there was what was called the "system of declaration." A prisoner was brought before a magistrate and committed for trial on the primâ facie case put forward by the Public Prosecutor. He might make a declaration, but it was not incumbent upon him to do so. Although, of course, it would be easy at the trial to ask why a person had made no declaration on the subject of the crime charged against him, he could assure the House that the fact that no such declaration had been made was not used against prisoners, for the Judges had been strong enough to prevent their being prejudiced in that way. He did not see why English Judges should not be strong enough to do the same thing here. If among English prosecuting counsel there might be young and keen spirits who could not be restrained, in Scotland prosecuting counsel were under his fatherly eye, and he should be only too ready to restrain them. [Laughter.] The hon. and learned Member who had just sat down had referred to what was said in the Divorce Court when a party was not presented for examination. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's argument was that, after all, divorce was necessarily a civil proceeding, and that the issue in a civil proceeding was a different issue from the issue in a criminal proceeding. It was because there was a difference between the issues that it was fair to draw a certain inference in a divorce case from the fact that a party did not go into the witness-box, while it would be unfair to draw the same inference in a criminal case. There were cases already where a wife
  816
  was a good witness against a husband— cases of assault by the husband on the wife, for example. As Public Prosecutor, he had been engaged in two cases of child murder within the last 12 months, and in both those cases, although he knew exactly how the crimes were committed, he could not convict the prisoners because the present laws of evidence rendered it impossible. In each case the mother had described the way in which the murder of the infant had been committed by the husband, but conviction was impossible because the wife's evidence was not available. Surely it would be well to render it possible to punish crimes of that character, and to disregard the somewhat sentimental considerations which had been expressed at to the turpitude of putting a wife into the box against her husband, or a husband against his wife. So far as Scotch experience went, they believed that the Bill would do good, and accordingly they gave it their hearty support.
  SIR FRANK LOCKWOODdesired to express his warm approval of the Bill, more especially as every other speech from his side of the House had been against it. [Opposition cheers.] This was one of the most important Measures that had been introduced this Session, and he was glad for the honour and credit of the House that it had been debated absolutely apart from any party feeling or party prejudice. [Cheers.] From both sides a certain number of hard cases had been put. Hon. Members on both sides had vied with each other in depicting heartrending scenes where trembling women and trembling prisoners had been placed at a disadvantage according to the views which hon. Members held. It was just as easy to draw a picture— he did not mean in the literal sense— [laughter]—of a poor fellow-creature who was convicted because his mouth was shut as to depict a case of hardship on the other side. He was sure there was no hon. and learned Member who had been in the habit of defending prisoners who did not remember how often he had appealed to juries as to the hardship "to this poor man who stands at the Bar with his mouth closed"—[laughter]—and all the time thanking his stars that he could not put him in the box. [Renewed laughter.] He did not propose to endeavour to illustrate the strength of the

  817
  case which he advocated by calling up any pathetic picture to its aid. The illustration of the Divorce Court was not altogether a happy one. It was said that the common practice in that Court was for counsel, when he found he was not able to go on, to say in withdrawing that he was not in a position to put his client in the box. But why? Because counsel knew perfectly well that his client was guilty. ["Hear, hear!"] Of course, no advocate would put his client into the box if he knew that he was guilty, and if he thought he would make a bad witness. [Laughter.] It, therefore, did not appear to him that this illustration assisted the argument against the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] He joined in the sympathy expressed with the hon. Member for Londonderry City. It would seem that some of his Friends could not go into the witness-box without making it apparent to the meanest capacity that they were telling what was absolutely untrue. [Laughter.] They were admirable persons in their way, but they had this unfortunate gift, if he might so call it—[laughter]—of impressing everybody who heard them with the firmest belief that they were unconscionable liars. [Laughter.] He sympathised with them and with his hon. and learned Friend. [Laughter.] The extreme case he put, even with regard to persons with whom every right-minded man must have a deep feeling of sympathy, did not appear to be an argument against the Bill. He wanted to say a few words with regard to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for the Dublin University—a speech well worthy the attention of the House, and which was strongly directed against the Bill. His right hon. and learned Friend dealt first of all with the Irish case. Why he dealt with it at such length he did not quite understand, because the Irish case was removed entirely from the Bill.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: That is only a dodge.
  SIR F. LOCKWOODobserved that the hon. and learned Member for Louth said it was a dodge, and he supposed he must take him to be a good judge. [Laughter.] He himself did not see the object of the dodge. He should like in this connection to make one protest against a
  818
  statement made by the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry City, who said that Irish prisoners in English Courts of justice had not fair play.
  MR. KNOX: I said there was a prejudice against them which did not exist in the same degree against other prisoners.
  SIR F. LOCKWOODsaid, if there was any prejudice against them, they had not fair play. ["Hear, hear!"] He had had some experience in Sheffield, where he was Recorder for ten years. There was a large Irish population there, and be it said to the credit of that population—and he believed it could be said of the Irish population generally throughout their large cities —that they very seldom appeared in criminal Courts charged with felonies. ["Hear, hear!"] They had a rumpus now and then, resulting in charges of unlawful wounding, or trifling offences of that kind. [Laughter.] His experience on the few occasions when they did appear in Courts of Justice was that there were no gentlemen better able to take excellent care of themselves. They were most admirable speakers; they were adept cross-examiners, and so far from any peculiarity of speech, provoking contempt, it was most provocative of a certain amount of good-humoured laughter. He was sure that Irishmen were not treated in English Courts of Justice with the slightest degree of unfairness, and that the hon. and learned Member would himself acknowledge this if he would make further inquiry. [Cheers.] Turning to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for the Dublin University, he had said there was no demand for this Bill. Who would make a demand for it? They did not expect that unconvicted prisoners would go in bands on a Sunday afternoon to Hyde Park and demand that they should have the right to appear as witnesses. [Laughter.] He did not quite see the quarter from which any demand could come that would satisfy the right hon. Gentleman. But there was a strong feeling in favour of this Measure. The great majority of the Judges, he believed, were strongly in favour of it. ["Hear, hear!"] He had some diffidence in saying it, having regard to the views he held with reference to the Bill, but surety, a large proportion of practitioners in the legal profession were in favour of the Bill. ["Hear!"]

  819
  Surely the long course of Measures which had been introduced since 1879 showed a strong trend of popular feeling in regard to this matter, and beyond that he did not know whence his hon. and learned Friend could expect a demand to come. His hon. and learned Friend drew a pathetic picture of an unfortunate, poor, untutored, uneducated man— innocent it was to be presumed—going into the witness-box to be badgered by vindictive counsel, to be sneered at by the Judge, and apparently ignored by the jury. What a condition of things! A prisoner poor and innocent, a vindictive prosecuting counsel, a jury callous, and a Judge impotent—
  MR. CARSON: I never said that any Judge was impotent. [Laughter.]
  SIR F. LOCKWOODsaid he was only describing the picture drawn by his hon. and learned Friend, and it involved a condition of things in which the Judge presiding was impotent to see justice done in the Court over which he was presiding. Of course, his hon. and learned Friend had to assume all that, and drew his pathetic picture from his own imagination. He could also draw a picture. A poor, uneducated, and innocent prisoner, a vindictive prosecuting counsel, a callous jury, and a Judge not alive to his duty, and the unfortunate prisoner was called upon to cross-examine various witnesses put into the box. What chance had he of doing that, what chance had he of coping with the vindictive counsel conducting the prosecution, who would re-examine and take advantage of all the inexperienced slips? That was an unfortunate position, no doubt, and he was as much justified in conjuring up such a picture as was his hon. and learned Friend in conjuring up the picture he drew. Hard cases there might be on either Bide, and pathetic pictures might be drawn. He firmly believed that passing this Bill would be a great act of justice, because it would remove what to his mind was a slur on the administration of justice. He should give his hearty support to the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. DARLINGsaid, with regard to some expressions that fell from the hon. and learned Member for Derry as to an Irishman being at a disadvantage in an English Court, that the remedy would
  820
  be not to reject this Bill, but to enact that an Irishman should not be a competent witness in an English Court of Justice on his own or anybody else's behalf. With regard to the proposal itself, he had never made it a feature in his election address, not supposing the matter had any personal interest for his constituents—[laughter]—but he had formed a very definite view that a man charged with an act of violence in a criminal Court should be in the same position as to giving evidence as he would be in were he charged for the act in a civil Court, and it was not easy to see how any logical distinction could be drawn. It was a question between two different systems of arriving at the truth. The old system of English law was this. They said that any person who was accused either of owing money or of having committed an assault, whether he was accused in a criminal court or in a civil court, was presumably a person who would not tell the truth, and, therefore, was incapacitated as a witness, and they did not allow the defendant to give evidence, whatever was the nature of the charge brought against him. Long ago that view was given up, and it was now considered a barbarous view. They had ascertained that people might have a high interest in not disclosing the truth and yet they disclosed it, and they had acted upon that tentatively so far. By Measure after Measure they had first excepted one cause of action after another from, the operation of that general rule. Then they proceeded further, and by Measure after Measure they had excepted one criminal charge after another from the operation of that rule, and now they stood in this position—that in a large number of cases the prisoner might, and did, go into the witness-box in a criminal court and gave evidence on his own behalf. They have even reached this pass, that it was possible in the same indictment to include a charge upon which a prisoner might give evidence, and another upon which he might not give evidence. One did not need to have been a Commissioner of Assize to see the absurdity of such a proceeding. The argument he would put before the House was simply this—they had gone so far that they must either repeal absolutely all the statutes which permitted a prisoner to give evidence on his own behalf or they

  821
  must enfranchise him altogether. He would suggest that the hon. and learned Members who were opposed to this Bill should consult what some of them had written on the dial in the Temple— Vestigia nulla retrorsum.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid he felt confident that if the Debate had been followed by a larger number of hon. Members the result would have been to lead them to vote for the rejection of the Measure. [Cries of "No!"] He was ashamed to confess that he had not studied the question with any great care, and he came to the Debate in a frame of mind to be converted by the arguments he might hear. The Attorney General throughout his distinguished legal career had moved in the serene atmosphere of the civil courts, and he did not think that either he or the Solicitor General, with all their wide experience, would venture to speak with anything like authority from the point of view of the criminal lawyer. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth stood in a different position. In addition to being a distinguished advocate in all courts, he had enjoyed an unique and exceptional career in the criminal courts, and he expected from him not merely general particulars of certain cases, but the enunciation of some great principle which was involved in this proposal. Instead of that he gratified them with very interesting and, in some instances, very graphic narratives of certain cases in which he had appeared and of others of which he had been informed, in which hardships had been inflicted on the prisoners. He admitted it was possible to multiply instances in which innocent, persons might have been acquitted had an opportunity been afforded them of giving evidence on their own behalf, but it was not owing to illustrations of that character that they were going to revolutionise a criminal system which had obtained unchallenged through a long series of generations. In one case, and in one case only, it would possibly be an advantage to a prisoner to allow him to go into the box, and that was where the prisoner's previous career was unimpeachable, but he had no hesitation in saying that to impose upon a prisoner the absolute responsibility of going into the witness-box would inflict
  822
  hardship which, in the end, would militate largely against the interests of justice. Let them take the case of a man who had been convicted of similar offences to the one with which he was now charged. The counsel for the prosecution would put to him questions relating to his previous career, and human nature being what it is, there would be very little chance of the jury acquitting him. It had been suggested by the Attorney General that a great number of Judges were in favour of this Measure, but at the same time there was no inconsiderable number of Judges who were opposed to it. He put a similar question to a great Judge the other day. He asked him if it was permissible to interrogate prisoners, and his answer was that if you once admitted prisoners into the witness-box, called by solicitor or counsel, the necessary consequence was that they would introduce into England that system which he considered one of the great defects of the administration of justice in France. It would follow, as a matter of course, that there would be interrogation of the prisoner by the Judge. [Cries of "No!"] It would be the natural result, and then they would have the spectacle which so shocked their feelings, of prisoners being tortured as they were tortured in the petty Courts of France. [Cries of "Divide!"] He did not wish to discuss the matter. Exhaustive speeches had already been delivered. He approached the question with an unbiassed mind. It would be undesirable that they should expose a prisoner to the necessity of being interrogated. In conclusion might he call the attention of the House to one very great danger. If a person did go into the box and did give answers which were untrue, resulting in his acquittal, he would be exposed to a prosecution for perjury. That was not a mere phantom of the imagination. He knew of a case where a prisoner was acquitted in that way. The prisoner was acquitted, and as a result of that acquittal the police—it was a police prosecution—at once prosecuted the man for perjury. ["Hear, hear!"] That case was brought before Mr. Justice Wills, who expressed his horror that the prisoner should again stand his trial. If this Bill passed, he hoped it would be passed in a form to avoid such scandals

  823
  as this. In conclusion he called attention to the fact that a prisoner who was acquitted on false evidence given by himself might be further prosecuted for perjury.
  MR. J. LLOYD WHARTONsaid he took a great interest in regard in the details of this Bill, and was somewhat qualified to say a word or two with regard to it. He wished the House to take into consideration what were the present position and prospects of criminal jurisdiction. A man was put on his trial, evidence was given against him, and he was desirous of making a statement. In accordance with what he thought was the unfortunate system pursued in their Courts, the man was told he must not make a statement now; he might ask questions. That was a course which he never followed, because he thought it was hard on the prisoner. A prisoner ought to be allowed to say what he had got to say in his defence as early as possible in the trial, because at the conclusion of a case an illiterate prisoner might have entirely forgotten what he had intended to advance in his defence. He was in favour of the Bill, and was prepared to vote for it. But he should like to see inserted in the Bill, before it became law, a safeguard against a prisoner being asked on cross-examination any question in regard to previous convictions. ["Hear!"] He was trying only two days ago a woman who had been 105 times convicted—41 of the convictions having been for felony—and if, as might be done under the Bill, he had asked that woman, "Is it not true that you have been convicted 105 times?" the jury without turning in the box would have found her guilty. The law hitherto had been most jealous, and rightly jealous, with regard to what he would call the concealment of previous convictions from the jury until the prisoner had been convicted, and he hoped that when the Bill got into Committee, a rigid provision would be inserted that questions in regard to previous convictions should not be asked. With that safeguard he thought the examination of prisoners would tend to the furtherance of justice.
  MR. DUNCOMBEclaimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker with-
  824
  held his assent, and declined then to put that Question. Debate resumed.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the Bill had been described as a Bill of great importance, which jurists had sought for and sighed for for the last thirty years, and it had been said that vain efforts had been made by various Governments, irrespective of party, to place it on the Statute Book. But the Government had placed the Bill on the Orders of the Day after the Berriew School Bill, showing that in their opinion the Berriew School Bill, which interested 37 people and a boy—[laughter]—was of more importance to the country than this great Measure affecting the criminal law. Again, there was another Measure which had been taken up by all sections of judges and jurists, namely, the establishment of Court of Criminal Appeal. No attempt had been made by the Government of a Court of Criminal Appeal. No Measure of real beneficence—but they preferred instead to endeavour to pass this Bill about which, to say the least, opinion was divided. Admittedly the Bill was intended to secure more convictions. It was said that the Irish Members should have no interest in it, because Ireland was excluded from its operation. But his experience was that after a pledge had been given in the House that a Bill should not apply to Ireland, an Amendment extending it to Ireland was inserted in the House of Lords. He was surprised to hear the learned Attorney General giving as one of his instances in favour of the Bill the question of forgery; and his mind went back to the case of the accused person who was allowed to give evidence in his own behalf, and not before a common jury, but before "the first assembly of gentlemen in Europe." A more lame and halting statement than that accused and innocent person made on that occasion he never heard; and the House did not believe it. In speaking on the Second Reading of the Coercion Act of 1887, in regard to a letter which was admittedly forged, Mr. Parnell took the miserable point that the end of a letter was turned down, whereas in his usual signature it was turned up, and the House received the statement with guffaws. That was the statement of the ablest, the astutest, and the coolest man in this country or perhaps any other.

  825
  He was put before the House on trial, and when the House had heard his defence they believed him guilty. The Coercion Act was passed on that basis; and the learned Attorney General, who was so anxious for the prisoner, passed through his great Bill about charges and allegations, and brought forward Richard Pigott in support of forgery. [Cries of "Divide!"] And was Mr. Parnell acquitted on his own sworn testimony? No, he was acquitted because the case against him broke down upon the miserable testimony of the accusers put forward with all the strength which the British Government could command. It was said that there was every chance in this country for the innocent, and that there was no prejudice against an Irishman. What about the brothers Habron, who were sentenced to death for the murder of policeman Cox, near Manchester, and kept in penal servitude, for no reason but that they were Irishmen— [Cries of "No!" and Nationalist cheers]—until Peace, on his own conviction for murder, admitted that he had killed the policeman. They knew what fair play Irishmen received in the House, and how utterly impartial and unprejudiced were the minds of the educated classes in regard to Irish claims. One of the greatest grudges which Irishmen had against Englishmen was that whatever the actions of the latter might have been with regard to Ireland, they were always graciously pleased to forgive themselves. [Laughter.] This Bill had passed the House of Lords a great number of times, and except for one occasion, when a Liberal Government was in office, the Lords had always inserted Ireland in the Bill. It was said that crimes should be punished. He saw the hon. Member for Battersea in his place, who was recently a criminal before a British jury. Workmen were continually being brought forward charged with conspiracy under the Trade Union Acts. [Cries of "Divide!"] The law of criminal conspiracy was the
  826
  widest and vaguest on which anyone could be tried—
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYclaimed to move "That the Question be now put." [Ministerial cheers and Opposition cries of "Oh!"]
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 185; Noes, 67.—(Division List, No. 107.)
  Question put accordingly, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 210; Noes, 41.—(Division List, No. 168.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to: — Bill Read a Second time, and committed for Monday next.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (UNDERMANNING) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  REGULAR AND ELDERS' WIDOWS' FUNDS BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  RAILWAY ASSESSORS (SCOTLAND) SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  ARCHDEACONRY OF CORNWALL BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  EAST INDIA COMPANY'S OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  PATENT OFFICE EXTENSION [EXPENSES].
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  REGULAR AND ELDERS' WIDOWS' FUND [CONTRIBUTION].
  Committee thereupon deferred till Monday next.
  EAST INDIA COMPANY'S OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION [CHARGE].
  Committee thereupon deferred till Monday next.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION [INCREASED GRANT].
  Resolution reported.
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of an addition to the Grant payable to School Boards, under Section ninety-seven of the Elementary Education Act 1870, by increasing the sum of seven shillings and sixpence therein mentioned by fourpence for every complete penny by which the rate therein mentioned exceeds threepence; Provided that the said sum as so increased shall not exceed sixteen shillings and sixpence."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: On what day will the Order for the Committee stage be set down?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: On Monday.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it intended to proceed with that stage on Monday?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: No.
  MR. ACLANDsaid it would be convenient if at this stage they knew what were the intentions of the Government with reference to the Second Reading of the Bill. The Bill was not yet printed; and they could not for a few days expect to see the details promised by the Vice President. In these circumstances he hoped the Leader of the House might be able to say that it would not be necessary to take the Second Reading immediately.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The right hon. Gentleman has made an appeal to me with regard to the future stages of this Bill. This question can hardly be discussed in abstraction and without consideration of the general course of business during the next few days, and immediately after the Easter holidays. If I may, without trespassing on the Rules of Order, go into these matters, I would say that my intention would
  828
  be to Read this Bill a Second time upon Monday next, or, if it so happened that the time available on Monday was not sufficient for the Second Reading, to conclude that stage upon Tuesday. But some right hon. Gentlemen opposite and others interested in the Bill have made a strong appeal to me not to bring on the Second Reading so soon after the period at which the Bill could be printed, and in the hands of Members. ["Hear, hear!"] I should be desirous, of course, in this as in other respects to meet the views of Gentlemen on either side of the House, and I hope that if I attempt to do so they will on their part meet the Government with regard to the general arrangement of business. I should be prepared to defer the Second Reading till the Monday on which we meet after the holidays, instead of on the Monday preceding the holidays, and further to rise on Monday next instead of on Tuesday next, provided the House, after dealing with the Motion which will stand first on Monday with regard to the adjournment for the Easter holidays, would consent to the introduction of the Irish Agriculture and Industries Bill, and to the further stages of certain Bills which I believe, so far as my information goes, to be quite uncontroversial. These Bills are the Regular and Elders' Widows' Funds Bill, the Railway Assessors (Scotland) Superannuation Bill, the Archdeaconry of Cornwall Bill, and the East India Company's Officers' Superannuation Bill; together with the necessary financial Resolutions relating to certain Bills. I believe these are unopposed Bills, and if it were necessary in order to carry them I would gladly move the suspension of the 12 o'clock Rule on. Monday, so that after having got through the Motion for the adjournment and these uncontroversial Bills the House should have no further work before the Easter holidays. I have some reason to believe that that arrangement would not be inconvenient to either side of the House, and as I bring it forward in order to approach the right hon. Gentleman in his objections to taking the Second Reading upon Monday, I trust it may receive general sanction from all quarters of the House. Of course, we on this side of the House are prepared to sit on Monday and on Tuesday to finish the business, but I think it will be to the general convenience if the plan I have devised to

  829
  meet the wish of the House were accepted by the House at large. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. ACLANDhad no doubt the proposition which the right hon. Gentleman had made would become a matter of negotiation through the usual channels with a view to a settlement.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYquite accepted this, but intimated that if the general plan of business which he had sketched out should not meet with approval there would be no reason to complain of him if he adhered to the original scheme which he laid before the House some days ago. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid there was one question which was necessary to be answered in order that the districts might know clearly before the vacation what the real basis was on which the Government had formed their Estimates of grants to the various districts. There was a difference of opinion as to what the School Board rate in a particular district actually was—whether the rate in the pound, mentioned in Section 97 of the Act of 1870, and referred to in the Resolution now before the House was the rate stated on the demand note of the rating authority, and actually paid by the ratepayers, or the nominal rate determined by the proportion between the amount required by the School Board paid by the rating authority and expended in the year, and the gross rate-able value of the district, regardless of the amount which the ratepayer must find to cover the loss through compounding, cost of collection, empty houses, and various other considerations. So far as he could see, the section was by no means clear on this point. It was, however, a very natural one, and affected very considerably the amount of the grant which would be given to different districts. In his own district of West Ham it would make a difference of 3d. per pound. If the Estimate was on the first consideration the grant in his district would be 2s. 3d. in the pound, and if on the second consideration it would be 2s. 6d. This was a difference so material that it was desirable that the matter should be cleared up at the earliest possible date. So far as he could gather the Estimates were entirely inaccurate from end to end. They depended upon a legal interpretation of the phraseology used in Section 97 as to whether the 3d. was on the
  830
  amount of the actual rateable value or the value as it existed on paper. Seeing that this would make a difference in some districts of at least 1s. per child in average attendance, and in his own district of from £1,400 to £1,500 per annum, he hoped the House would consider the matter of sufficient importance to have this ambiguity cleared away at the earliest possible moment. He hoped that before the present stage was passed the Solicitor General or some other official on behalf of the Government would state clearly the particular basis on which their computation had been made. One other question he desired to ask, regretting to delay the House, but there was keen anxiety to know what the actual grant would be, and differences of impression were widespread, and made a complete statement desirable in reference to the decrease in the grant after the first year of operation. The question did not perhaps arise on this initial stage, but it was a point that should be cleared up before the Easter vacation.
  SIR J. GORSTregretted very much that it was impossible at this stage to clear up all the doubts the hon. Member had expressed. The hon. Gentleman had put a question to him early in the even-mix to which he had given the best answer he could, and if the hon. Gentleman would study the terms of that answer he would find it threw a considerable amount of light on the position. It was impossible to clear up all doubts now, because the operation of the Bill would depend upon the construction of an Act of Parliament 27 years old, and no declaration made by a non-legal Member like himself, or, indeed, by the Attorney General or the Solicitor General, would settle the matter, which must be left to the decision of Judges in the administration of justice. The difficulties to which the hon. Member had alluded arose out of a not very clearly drawn section of the Act of 1870, and no declaration by himself or by his hon. and learned colleagues would make that 97th Section clear and complete. If it was to be cleared up, that should be done in Committee on the Bill, and if the House chose to address itself to the task of amending that section, the assistance of the Law Officers, of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for York, and others, would be available.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the right hon. Gentleman had been very playful with the House, but Members were in an extremely difficult position because this unintelligible section, upon which four different forms of procedure had arisen, having very different financial results, was the basis of this Resolution now being reported, and was to be the basis of the Bill. The whole of the grants would proceed on the basis of Section 97, which was unintelligible. His hon. Friend opposite, who probably understood the matter as well as anyone in the House, said the difference in procedure meant a difference of a 3d. rate in West Ham. The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman was that an Amendment might be introduced in Committee; but, having regard to the Resolution, it would not be possible to Members to propose any Amendment which, in the opinion of the Chairman, would be in the direction of increasing the grant. It was open, no doubt, to Amendment by decreasing the grant, but this would be hardly acceptable to their constituents. They expressed some surprise on the Motion which they were now reporting at the total amount of money being only £110,000 additional for Board Schools; but to-day from the Vice President they had heard that even this small sum was liable to a reduction in the second year, and to a reduction the extent of which it was very difficult to estimate. They were in this strange position—that they had passed a Resolution which was to be the basis of a Bill, and which was incomprehensible to the authorities who would have to put it before them. There certainly was the gravest doubt among authorities in the country as to what this provision actually meant, and he hoped that on the Second Reading of the Bill, at the beginning of the Debate, they would have a clear statement from the Government, and, if possible, from the Law Officers of the Crown, as to what was the meaning of the Bill.
  MR. F. A. CHANNINGsaid these proposals affected such a great variety of interests in such a variety of ways that it seemed to him positively monstrous that the Government should take the Second Reading of the Bill before a reasonable time had been allowed
  832
  to the ratepayers of the country to consider the matter, and to make representations it they desired to do so.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSsaid that on Monday night the Vice President of the Committee of Council gave several sets of figures, in order to show how greatly the cost of schools varied in different localities. Among others, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Sutton-in-Ashfield School Board. The authorities of that place had requested him to state that the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman were inaccurate. It was not necessary to give the correct figures, but he presumed that in the allocation of the grant great care would be taken to obtain correct information with regard to the rating in the several places affected.
  Resolution agreed to. Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir John Gorst, the First Lord of the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Solicitor General.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT(1870) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend Section ninety-seven of the Elementary Education Act 1870," presented accordingly, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 196.]

  PUBLIC OFFICES (WHITEHALL) SITE [ADVANCES].
  Resolution reported:—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums, not exceeding in the whole £500,000, as may be required for the purposes of any Act of the present Session for the acquisition of a Site for Public Offices in or near Whitehall, and for other purposes connected therewith, and to authorise the Treasury, for the purpose of providing for the issue and repayment of such sums, to borrow money by means of terminable annuities for a period not exceeding fifty years, such annuities to be paid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for the service of the Commissioners of Works, and, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund."
  Resolution agreed to.

  FOREIGN PRISON-MADE GOODS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 26th April.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ALDERSHOT AND FARNBOROUGH) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [1st April] further adjourned till Monday 26th April.
  METROPOLITAN AND OTHER POLICE COURTS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  APPEAL IN CERTAIN CIVIL MATTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOLR, Leeds Central)THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOLR, Leeds Central) moved for leave to introduce a Bill "to make further provision with respect to the relief of the destitute poor in Ireland; and for other purposes connected therewith." He stated that there were only some slight alterations in the Bill from that of last year.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked if the question of the franchise for Poor Law elections would be dealt with?
  MR. J. P. FARRELLasked whether the Bill would be sent to the Grand Committee or a Select Committee?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the Bill would be sent to the Grand Committee on Law. Franchise clauses would be foreign to the object of the Bill.
  Bill presented, and Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.— [Bill 197.]

  BICYCLES (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR MR. GERALD BALFOUR moved for leave to introduce a Bill to assimilate the law as to bicycles in Ireland to that which prevailed in England, where lights had to be shown and bells sounded.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid it was quite true that this was the law in England, but then the law in England was administered by the County Councils, whereas in Ireland it would be a police a affair. Besides, the hackney carmen were not compelled to exhibit lights, and why should the bicyclists?
  Bill to make regulations with respect to bicycles and other similar machines in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour and Mr. Attorney General for Ireland; presented, and Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.— [Bill 198.]

  NAVY AND MARINES (WILLS) ACT (1865) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  BAKEHOUSES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  MIDWIVES' REGISTRATION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 3rd May.
  PRISONERS' PERSONAL CORRECTION PROHIBITION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 13th May.
  CHAFF-CUTTING MACHINES ACCIDENTS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 29th April.
  TROUT FISHING CLOSE TIME (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 12th May.
  LONDON WATER COMPANIES AMALGAMATION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS AND LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Second Reading [7th April] further adjourned till Monday next.
  LABOUR BUREAUX BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 25th May.
  UNLAWFUL POSSESSION BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [29th January] further adjourned till Wednesday 12th May.
  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Motion, for Committal to Select Committee [24th March] further adjourned till To-morrow.
  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 3rd May.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  MOTION.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
    On the Motion, "That the House do now Adjourn,"
    SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that when the First Lord of the Treasury mentioned a few minutes earlier the large amount of business he proposed to take on Monday, the forms of the House did not allow of any Question being asked in regard to it, and he now begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether ample time would be given for a discussion on foreign affairs on Monday. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that a Debate on foreign affairs, when those affairs were in a less pressing condition than at the present time, had often taken the whole day on a Motion for Adjournment over the Easter holidays. If it lasted the whole night, would the Government persist in the programme the right hon. Gentleman had laid down for Monday?
    MR. J. P. FARRELLinquired on what day would the Budget be introduced?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he thought that the Budget would be introduced either on the Monday or the Thursday after the House re-assembled. There had already been six or seven discussions on Crete, and he hoped, whilst not desiring to unduly curtail discussion, the Debate on Monday would, therefore, be kept within fairly reasonable proportions. The business he had asked the House to transact was really a very moderate amount.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. Anstruther.)
    Debate arising;
    And, it being One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
    House Adjourned at One o'Clock.