HC Deb 21 March 1905 vol 143 cc669-721

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £12,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Departments of the Solicitor for the Affairs of His Majesty's Treasury, King's Proctor, and Director of Public Prosecutions, the Cost of Prosecutions, and other Legal Proceedings."

Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item BB (Criminal Prosecutions not undertaken by the Director of Public Prosecutions) be reduced by £200."—(Mr. Lough.)

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)

was surprised that the hon. Member had given no explanation of the object of the Amendment.

MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

I gave it on the last occasion.


said it did not follow that hon. Members now present were in the House when the question was last discussed, and they ought not to be asked to vote without being informed of the reasons why the reduction was proposed. He assumed that it was in connection with the Whitaker Wright prosecution. Now he was one of those who did not agree with the view of the Attorney-General in the matter of that prosecution, but in the end it turned out that he was right, for Whitaker Wright was convicted. But all men, even the Attorney-General, were liable to make mistakes, and because one might have been made in this case, he did not consider it a sufficient reason for moving a reduction of the hon. and learned Gentleman's salary. The point at issue between them, it would be in the recollection of the House, was as to the object of the issue of false balance-sheets, their contention being that by such issue money was obtained by false pretences and great misery caused. Therefore, that was an offence punishable by law. But the Attorney-General took the view that there was no evidence to prove that the publication of the false balance-sheets enabled Whitaker Wright to obtain money or caused any one to lose it, and it was on that ground that the hon. and learned Gentleman based his opinion that the Government ought not to prosecute. That, he believed, was the wrong view. But then the hon. and learned Gentleman was not perhaps aware that numerous people would have sold their shares had it not been for the issue of the balance-sheets, and others bought shares on the strength of them, thus being undoubtedly defrauded of their money by a false pretence. No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman was animated by the desire, which so often animated lawyers and other people, to be certain of success before taking action, and there was something to be said for that point of view. It was suggested that those who suffered by reason of the failure of the London and Globe Finance Corporation should themselves have taken action. As a matter of fact they did so and events justified their policy. But that was no ground for suggesting that the Attorney-General was not capable of fulfilling the duties of his office, which, he assumed, was the object of the Motion. As he understood it the Government had done the right thing, and paid the costs of those who instituted the prosecution. When one once got in the hands of the law there was no telling what might happen.

SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

I rise to a point of order. The Motion before the House is for the reduction of the Vote. The hon. Member does not seem to be speaking to that question or to be making any remarks bearing upon the reduction.


There are two questions really before the Committee, the reduction of the Vote and the payment of the whole sum. The remarks of the hon. Member related to the payment of these prosecution expenses. I think that is relevant; it is the line on which the debate proceeded the other night.


And it occupied two hours.


I do not intend to occupy the time of the Committee any longer.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Canarvon Boroughs)

Oh, go on, there is the closure at half-past five.


I do not think I have ever in my experience of this House been present at a more gross obstruction and wasting of public time.

SIR GEORGE BARTLEY (Islington, N.) rose, but Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN remained standing.


The hon. Member, I understand, rises to a point of order.


Yes, Sir. I wish to ask, Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, whether the right hon. Gentleman is speaking to the reduction or to the Vote.


He was speaking to neither; the right hon. Gentleman was referring to the course of the present debate.


What has happened with regard to this question of the Whitaker Wright prosecution is this. It was discussed at quite sufficient length on the previous occasion. The Committee was then ready to divide, but it was arranged that it should be adjourned in order that the Secretary to the Treasury should convey some information which the House desired to possess. It was on that small point that the adjournment was agreed to, and now the Government, having taken from us all our public time, except from a quartér-past three to half-past five, deliberately encourage one of their supporters to occupy a large part of that reduced time. There are other items in this Vote which require discussion, and this is the way in which they connive at—[Mr. SWIFT MACNEILL: Organise, Organise,]—yes, organise, the employment of the reduced time which they have left to a muzzled House of Commons.


I think the right hon. Gentleman cannot possibly have been present on the last occasion, or he would recollect that this was discussed at considerable length, and it was on his side of the House that a determination was expressed to have more time for the discussion. A Motion was made to report Progress, and owing to its being very nearly twelve o'clock it was obviously useless to resist that Motion, and it was acquiesced in. There was no such arrangement as that which the right hon. Gentleman alleges [OPPOSITION cries of "Yes, there was"]; and all hon. Gentlemen present will agree with what I say. [Cries of "No, no! We were present the whole time."]


Look what has happened since that time. We have now the guillotine.


That does not alter what took place, not even the guillotine can alter what has passed. I have no desire to stand between the House and the division, although no reason was given by the mover for the reduction.


It has already been given.


In compliance with what appeared to be the general desire of the House, the Treasury said they would pay the costs of this prosecution. Now a Motion is made that £200 be taken out of the pockets of those who had conducted this prosecution. [MINISTERIAL cheers.] I could have understood it if it had been a Motion to reduce the salary of the Law Officers.

MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire, South Molton)

That will come in time.


Having regard to the reasons—the very odd reasons given for this Motion, may I be allowed to say one word. What I had to determine was whether the name of the Director of Public Prosecutions should be given to the prosecution of Whitaker Wright; I had to form my opinion on the materials before me to the best of my judgment, and the conclusion that I arrived at was that it would not be proper to do so. I am not going at length into my reasons; they related to the construction of a section of the Larceny Act, and, on the materials before me, I came to the conclusion that Whitaker Wright in issuing that most misleading balance-sheet did not do so for the purpose of deceiving or defrauding the shareholders or creditors; on the contrary, that it was for the purpose of benefiting them by carrying through an arrangement, a most improper one in my judgment, but one which did not seem to come within a breach of the criminal law. I stated my reasons more than a year ago on the Address, and I think the House was generally satisfied on the subject; at all events, a notice of Motion given on it was not prosecuted by the mover.


It was closured.


There was an opportunity.


No, there was not.


I think the hon. Member is mistaken.


No, I am not.


At any rate no attempt was made to move it.


It was closured.


I will not allow this to pass. My recollection is perfectly distinct.


Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to interrupt in this way. If he wishes to correct the Attorney-General he will have an opportunity of doing that afterwards.


I am sure the Attorney-General's sense of courtesy will allow his recollection to be revived. What occurred was this: the hon. Member for South Molton had an Amendment down to the Address in reference to this Whitaker Wright prosecution; but before it was arrived at an hon. Member was put up to ask the Attorney-General a Question; we got his ex parte statement, and the Amendment was never moved.


I may remind the hon. Member that the fact that a Question was asked and a statement made did not in the slightest degree prevent the Amendment being moved.


It was closured.


I am not going to argue the matter. I only ask hon. Gentlemen who really wish to inform their minds to read my statement. I only wish to make one further observation of a general character. Whatever may be the opinion of any hon. Member with regard to any particular case, I think all will agree that it is one of the most important things in this country that in the very difficult and arduous and delicate task of deciding whether the Director of Public Prosecutions should take up a case, the Attorney-General, upon whom the responsibility rests, should exercise his judgment freely independently, and without fear or favour, and I do ask hon. Gentlemen opposite whether the line a few, a very few, of them are disposed to take in this matter is calculated to ensure the continuance of that system under which in this matter we have lived hitherto. If on every occasion the Attorney-General is thought to have done wrong his conduct is to be the subject of public censure in this House, do hon. Gentlemen think that will be conducive to the welfare of this country? As long as I hold this office, and I speak for every member of the Bar who occupies it after me, the duty of the Attorney-General in this particular matter will be to act with a sole eye to the public service, and with a sole eye to see whether every particular case is one proper to be taken up by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

MR. BOND (Nottingham, E.)

said the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had charged them with wasting the time of the House, but what did he think of the action of his followers in thus, without explanation, impugning the action of the Attorney-General?


The matter was fully discussed on the last occasion.


When most hon. Members now present were not in the House. He thought the Motion of the hon. Member opposite, particularly having regard to the contemptuous way in which it was moved, was an abuse of the forms of the

House. The moving of such a Motion, in order to bring a railing accusation against the Attorney-General—a Motion in which, in fact, there was no substance—was as gross a waste of the time of the House as anything that might be done on his side of the House by way of meeting a rather discreditable manœuvre. After all, it did not follow that the opinion given by the Attorney-General was wrong. All men were fallible, even Judges, and it was a matter of notoriety that the ruling of the Judge as to the applicability to the case of the Larceny Act had not passed unquestioned. Therefore it was not by any means clear that the opinion of the Attorney-General was really wrong.

Question put

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 173; Noes, 237. (Division List No. 68.)

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) Lament, Norman
Ainsworth, John Stirling Emmott, Alfred Langley, Batty
Allen, Charles P. Esmonde, Sir Thomas Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)
Ambrose, Robert Fenwick, Charles Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)
Barlow, John Emmott Ffrench, Peter Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)
Barran, Rowland Hirst Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE Levy, Maurice
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Flavin, Michael Joseph Lloyd-George, David
Bell, Richard Flynn, James Christopher Lundon, W.
Bonn, John Williams Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Lyell, Charles Henry
Blake, Edward Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Boland, John Freeman-Thomas, Captain, F. MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Brigg, John Fuller, J. M. F. MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Broadhust, Henry Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John M'Crae, George
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Goddard, Daniel Ford M'Kean, John
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Grant, Corrie M'Kenna, Reginald
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick) Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)
Burke, E. Haviland- Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Mooney, John J.
Buxton, Sydney Charles Hammond, John Morley, Rt Hon. John (Montrose)
Caldwell, James Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Moss Samuel
Cameron, Robert Harrington, Timothy Murphy, John
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Harwood, George Nannetti, Joseph P.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Hayden, John Patrick Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)
Causton, Richard Knight Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Cawley, Frederick Helme, Norval Watson Nussey, Thomas Willans
Channing, Francis Allston Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
Cheetham, John Frederick Henderson, Arthur (Durham) O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid
Churchill, Winston Spencer Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E. O'Brien, Patrick Kilkenny)
Clancy, John Joseph Holland, Sir William Henry O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)
Cremer, William Randal Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Crombie, John William Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Dalziel, James Henry Jacoby, James Alfred 0'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) Johnson, John O'Mara, James
Delany, William Joicey, Sir James O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea) Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Dobbie, Joseph Jones, Leif (Appleby) Priestley, Arthur
Donelan, Captain A. Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Rea, Russell
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Jordan, Jeremiah Reddy, M.
Duffy, William J. Kilbride, Denis Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Duncan, J. Hastings Kitson, Sir James Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)
Edwards, Frank Lambert, George Rickett, J. Compton
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants. Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Stanhope, Hon. Philip James Weir, James Galloway
Roche, John Stevenson, Francis S White, George (Norfolk)
Roe, Sir Thomas Strachey, Sir Edward White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Rose, Charles Day Sullivan, Donal White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Runciman, Walter Taylor, Theordore C. (Radcliffe) Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Tennant, Harold John Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Schwann, Charles E. Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Seely, Maj J. E. B. (Isle of Wight) Thomas. David Alfred (Merthyr) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Shackleton, David James Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Shaw, Thomas (Hawiek, B.) Tomkinson, James Wood, James
Sheehy, David Toulmin, George Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Huddersf'd)
Shipman, Dr. John G. Trevelyan, Charles Philips Young, Samuel,
Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) Waldron, Laurence Ambrose Yoxall, James Henry
Slack, John Bamford Wallace, Robert
Smith, Samuel (Flint) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Soames, Arthur Wellesley Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. Lough and Mr. Herbert
Soares, Ernest J. Wason Eugene (Clackmannan) Lewis.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Hops. J. F. (Sheffield. Brightside)
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Cubitt, Hon. Henry Honer, Frederick William
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Dalrymple, Sir Charles Hoult, Joseph
Allsopp, Hon. George Davenport, William Bromley- Howard. John (Kent, Faversh'm
Anson, Sir William Reynell Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham) Haword, J. (Midd., Tottenham)
Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O. Denny, Colonel Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Dickson, Charles Scott Hudson, George Bickersteth
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hon. Sir H. Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Hunt, Rowland
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)
Bailey, James (Walworth) Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse
Bain, Colonel James Robert Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred
Baird, John George Alexander Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.
Balcarres, Lord Elliott, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)
Baldwin, Alfred Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hou. Col. W.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A J.(Manch'r) Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r. Kerr, John
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds) Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Laurie, Lieut.-General
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs) Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Banner, John S. Harmood- Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Fisher, William Hayes Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. NR
Bartley, Sir George C. T. FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin FitzRoy, Hon. Edward Algernon Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Flannery, Sir Fortescue Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Beckett, Ernest William Flower, Sir Ernest Leveson, Gower, Frederick N. S.
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Forster, Henry William Llewellyn, Evan Henry
Bignold, Sir Arthur Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.) Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.
Bigwood, James Galloway, William Johnson Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Bingham, Lord Gardner, Ernest Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Garfit, William Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.)
Bond, Edward Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. Lowe, Francis William
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn) Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'rH'mlets Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)
Brassey, Albert Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John. Goulding, Edward Alfred Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Brotherton, Edward Allen Graham, Henry Robert Macdona, John Cumming
Bull, William James Gray, Ernest (West Ham) MacIver, David (Liverpool)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Maconochie, A. W.
Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A. (Glasgow) Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) M'Calmont, Colonel James
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Gretton, John M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W.
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire) Hain, Edward Majendie, James A. H.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Malcolm, Ian
Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc. Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'derry) Manners, Lord Cecil
Chapman, Edward Hare, Thomas Leigh. Marks, Harry Hananel
Clive, Captain Percy A. Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th) Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Cohen, Benjamin, Louis Hay, Hon. Claude George Milvain, Thomas
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Montagu, Hon. Scott (Hants.)
Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R. Heath, Sir James (Staffords. N W. Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Heaton, John Henniker Morgan, David J. (Walthamsto'
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Holder, Augustus Morpeth, Viscount
Cripps, Charles Alfred Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Morrell, George Herbert
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Hogg, Lindsay Morrison, James Archibald
Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Ridley, S. Forde Tritton, Charles Ernest
Mount, William Arthur Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Tuff, Charles
Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Tuke, Sir John Batty
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Rolleston, Sir John F. L. Turnour, Viscount
Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Round, Rt. Hon. James Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield)
Myers, William Henry Royds, Clement Molyneux Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Nicholson, William Graham Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Walker, Col. William Hall
Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury) Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Parker, Sir Gilbert Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- Wanklyn, James Leslie
Parkes, Ebenezer Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse) Warde, Colonel C. E.
Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Welby, Lt,-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton
Pemberton, John S. G. Seton-Karr, Sir Henry Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)
Percy, Earl Shaw-Stewart. Sir H. (Renfrew) Wharton. Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Pierpoint, Robert Simeon, Sir Barrington Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne)
Pilkington, Colonel Richard Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Platt-Higgins, Frederick Smith. HC. (North'mb. Tynesid' Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Plummer, Sir Walter R. Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Powell, Sir Francis Sharpe Smith. Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Pretyman, Ernest George Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich) Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)
Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes. Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Purvis, Robert Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Pym, C. Guy Stock, James Henry Wortley, Rt, Hon. C. B. Stuart
Randles, John S. Stone, Sir Benjamin Wylie, Alexander
Rankin, Sir James Stroyan, John
Ratcliff, S. F. Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Reid, James (Greenock) Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ. Alexander Acland-Hood and
Remnant, James Farquharson Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) Viscount Valentia.
Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine Thornton, Percy M.
Renwick, George Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Original Question again proposed.


thought the sum of money proposed to be granted as compensation to Mr. Adolf Beck deserved the attention of the House. He believed these cases of arrest, wrongful imprisonment, and unfairly conducted trials were not nearly so rare as a great many people believed. He thought that the conduct of the police in this particular case required the attention of the Home Secretary. In the case of this unfortunate man he was found to be innocent of all the charges made against him, and for many years he suffered the most tremendous persecution. He felt that the police were greatly to blame because they arrested this man upon very inadequate evidence. There was too much disposition on the part of the police to arrest anybody without reliable evidence, trusting that something would turn up afterwards. The police arrested Mr. Beck on the statement of a woman, and he was arrested and kept in confinement while an attempt was made to get up a case against him. There had been other notorious cases in London recently, and he was surprised at the number of cases within six months in which arrests were made and the accused detained without a scrap of evidence made against them. In this instance the evidence produced was of such a character that the police ought to have received it with the greatest caution. A number of women who had suffered grevious wrongs were brought to see Mr. Beck, and they were naturally anxious to pick out the man who had injured and robbed them. Of these women only about one half identified Mr. Beck, but the police did not seem to have taken warning from that fact. He believed that prisoners were far too lightly cast into prison, often without any evidence and on slight suspicion. If Mr. Beck had been left at large for a week or two he would have found it difficult to get away, and if more leisure had been shown by the police in going about this matter there would have been no detriment to the carrying out of the law.

When they came to the conduct of criminal prosecutions he thought there was much ground for complaint. The case passed rapidly out of the hands of the police, and he thought the prosecution was proceeded with in a way which showed a determination to secure a conviction. He had blamed the police for the avidity with which they swallowed everything the women who accused Mr. Beck said to them. But how much more blameworthy were the solicitors, counsel, and especially the Crown prosecutor, who ought to have been specially careful to avoid irregularity. It seemed to him that when the Crown prosecutor did get charge of the case he did not proceed with due regard to the maxim that the prisoner should have the benefit of the doubt. Evidence was brought forward in the early stages of the case which was found to be of a shaky character. At the police Court it, was assumed all along that Mr. Beck was the same as Smith who committed similar crimes fifteen or twenty years ago. There was considerable prejudice created against the man at the commencement of the trial through that assumption on the part of the police. Afterwards the prosecutor began to have some doubts, and he did not give the evidence which he had intended to bring. Mr. Beck's solicitor asked for the production of proof that Mr. Beck was the same man as Smith. Why was not that assistance given to the defending counsel? Should not the object of the Crown prosecutor be to arrive at the truth rather than to convict the prisoner? The whole proceedings were carried out with the idea of obtaining a conviction, as if counsel and solicitors had some inducement, perhaps, to get promotion or credit by securing a conviction rather than by actually getting at the facts of the case.

There was great reason for complaint as to the manner in which the case was carried on when it finally came before the Judge. When it was found that the defence was going to bring out that Mr. Beck was not the same man as Smith, the prosecution refused to bring out at the trial the evidence which was used in the police Court. The Judge decided that it was irrelevant to the issue. This proved a very embarrassing proceeding for Mr. Beck's counsel, and the result was that a conviction was secured. No one could look at the difficulties with which the defendant had to contend without feeling that perfectly innocent persons might have false charges brought against them. If this House could do anything to protect others from being placed in equally difficult circumstances it ought to be done. When Mr. Beck was sent to prison he commenced sending petitions to the Home Office. One came after another, and it was not until about half-a-dozen had been sent that any attention whatever was given to them. In these petitions Mr. Beck made it clear that there was absolute proof that he could not be Smith who was accused of the crime on a former occasion. Mr. Beck also ascertained that the prison authorities were well convinced of that fact. He really thought that when circumstances of the greatest gravity were brought to the notice of the Home Office they ought to be carefully inquired into. Even then the Home Office tried to sustain the action of the prosecution. When they got information about Smith's identification marks it was sent to the Judge. He did not propose to comment on the action of the Judge. It was the system he wanted to direct attention to. The action of the Home Office was absolutely callous. The prison authorities were not told that the evidence was wrong or anything of that kind. The Judge admitted at the close of his long argumentative letter that the identification marks of Smith proved that he was not the same man. The Judge attached very great importance to the identification marks. What did the Home Office do? The Home Office said, "Sweep away this evidence, blot out the record of the identification marks, give the prisoner we have now got hold of a new number and then all will be right." And so this unfortunate man had to endure a long term of imprisonment. Finally he was released, and the astounding thing was that the same course of events began again. The police again arrested him on doubtful evidence, and again the trial was much the same from the first. Some feeling of doubt had commenced now to get into the mind of the prosecutor, but finally this unfortunate man was committed once more. The remarkable thing in this long course of injustice was that the prosecutor, the Home Office, the police, and the prison authorities did not make the slightest movement in the direction of discovering the truth. It was not until the end of eight years that the mistakes which these great departments had been making were disclosed to the public.

He did not think there could be a case which could reflect more seriously on the criminal procedure of this country. There were some features of the inquiry which was held at the instance of the Government to which the most serious attention of the House ought to be directed. Mr. Beck who was absolutely innocent had been "pardoned." What had he done that he had to be pardoned? It was not Mr. Beck who required to be pardoned. It was the Home Office, the police, and the Crown prosecutor who required pardon. He wished to know whether any change was going to be made in the criminal law in order to prevent, such miscarriages of justice. In answer to a Question which he recently asked the Prime Minister he got the unsympathetic Answer that cases of this kind were extremely rare. He did not believe they were rare. He had heard of a good many cases himself, and he had no doubt that hon. Members connected with the legal profession had heard of many of those cases. The inquiry had been most satisfactory in so far as the bringing out of the facts was concerned, but the result arrived at up to the present had been of the most inadequate character. Four recommendations had been made by the Committee of Inquiry. They refrained from recommending that there should be a Court of Appeal. That was a matter that should be inquired into more fully. He did not think that an effective remedy would be obtained for such miscarriages of justice unless a Court of Criminal Appeal was set up. The Inquiry Committee recommended that there should be a means of referring to a superior Court on points of law. He had tried to study the Bill introduced by the Government in another place, but he was not sure that it would be effective for the purpose. The Committee also recommended that there should be more co-ordination of the departments connected with the Home Office. He wished to hear from the Home Secretary whether anything was being done in regard to that.

The whole of the evidence in this case had produced on his mind the painful impression that people were not nearly so safe from the possibility of arrest and cruel treatment in this country as they had thought. Whenever any charge was made against a man, either criminal or civil, he was often placed in the most difficult position, with few friends about him. The facts of this case showed that a perfectly innocent man might be placed in these difficult circumstances. It was the duty of the House to protect the innocent. The passion for conviction by the police and the Crown prosecutors, and the refusal of assistance to the defence, struck him as most lamentable. It was better that a thousand guilty persons should be set free than that one innocent person should be unjustly convicted and sent to prison. Although it might be said by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that if he moved the reduction of the Vote by £100 that, if successful, would only deprive Mr. Beck of that amount of the proposed indemnity; still it was the only way in which they could bring the case under review, and he moved accordingly that the amount of the Vote be reduced by £100.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item BBB (Compensations for Wrongful Imprisonment) be reduced by. £100."—(Mr. Lough.)


said he agreed with his hon. friend that the Report of the Committee on Mr. Beck's case was not pleasant reading to those interested in the administration of justice in this country. Very few of those spoken of in the Report came out of the inquiry satisfactorily. Certainly many of the witnesses had lamentably distinguished themselves, and among them the class of experts in hand-writing. The Home Office was, he thought, from time to time, clearly put on its guard. The officials of that Department ought to have made much earlier inquiry and representations, which would probably have led to the discovery of this great miscarriage of justice. Even those responsible for the conduct of the case in Court, both for the prosecution and the defence, and even the Judges, seemed not to be free from our doubts as to the wisdom of the proceedings in a matter affecting the liberty of the subject and the administration of justice. But he could not go with his hon. friend when he made such strong reflections on the police. The reflections in the Committee's Report were made not on the police but on other officials, and it was largely due to an intelligent police officer and not to others that justice was ultimately done. The Report as a whole certainly demanded grave consideration, and he agreed it ought to lead to some improvement in the law itself, apart from the administration of the law. The principal charge was that of obtaining jewellery from women under false pretences; but there was another charge, that of a previous conviction. Such was the irony of the case, that it was probably out of consideration for the prisoner that the second charge was not proceeded with. If it had been, and proof demanded, probably justice would have been done, for one physical fact would have been conclusive. He could not help thinking that those who were responsible for the absence of the fullest consideration of the charge of previous conviction were highly reprehensible. He thought there was often too great a disposition to take a charge of that description as proved without serious investigation. In this case, if there had been more full inquiry, probably justice instead of injustice would have been done.

Another sad reflection was that such a double miscarriage of justice should have occurred in the case of the life of one single person; whereas one would have thought that such an event could hardly have happened at all, even as an accidental coincidence. He would not carry his observations on that point further; but he urged that it was a most serious matter that for nine or ten years, including police supervision, a man marred of every prospect of life, should have been severely punished personally, and should have been robbed of his reputation. Such events gave some misgiving whether the percentage of cases of injustice, even in these days of high civilisation, was quite as low as it should be. He thought the Committee was indebted to his hon. friend for suggesting the matter for consideration and personally he was of opinion that there should be something in the way of a rehearing other that that provided under our existing judicial system; and he had himself brought in Bills to effect that object some two or three years ago, and long before this case. He could not help thinking that his hon. friend was well advised when he said that, when Mr. Beck was undergoing imprisonment, when the mark of previous conviction was attached to him, and when that was shown not to have been proved, the Home Office, instead of merely removing the sign of previous conviction, should have made investigation to see whether Mr. Beck ought to have been convicted of the charge at all. He hoped the Home Secretary would take care that such measures were adopted as to prevent the possibility of any such similar occurrence in the future.

He wished to add a word from the personal point of view of Mr. Beck. Mr. Beck he did not know; but that Gentleman had had communicated to him one or two of the circumstances mentioned to the Committee. It seemed to him that Mr. Beck's personal injuries had not been adequately considered. The compensation originally offered was £2,000, and that was raised to £5,000, or more than doubled. That very alteration appeared to him—with the same materials before the Home Office on both occasions—to show a degree of latitude and doubt on the part of the Home Office which left room for further consideration still. He submitted that if there was, as he believed, truth in the circumstances of the case placed before the Home Secretary by Mr. Beck, by way of memorial, and that they were well founded, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary should consider whether or not, in justice to Mr. Beck, he was not bound, at any rate, to appoint a Committee, either of this House or a Departmental Committee, which should look into the whole facts, and deal with them from quite a different point of view from that taken by the previous Committee. That previous Committee consisted of the most eminent men and made a most able Report, but they dealt with the question in its public and judicial aspects. There was, however, a personal and financial standpoint in relation to Mr. Beck which that Committee had not considered. He submitted that, though £5,000 might from one point of view be an adequate compensation, from another aspect it could be no adequate compensation; and no effort should be spared to do adequate justice to a man whose whole life had been ruined by the action of the State. There could be no more complete vindication of Mr. Beck's personal character than the Report of the Committee, so far as words could effect that. The Committee had declared that there was no shadow of foundation for any of the charges and no reason for supposing that Mr. Beck had any connection with them. But it had to be remembered that for nearly ten years Mr. Beck had suffered every possible ignominy, and that his financial losses had never been inquired into by the Committee at all. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, should give consideration to that point. The public aspect of Mr. Beck's position and demands had been inquired into, but not the losses to him as an individual; and if there were any losses to this individual the House had a right to demand that these should also be compensated.

Mr. Beck was to receive under this Vote £5,000; but that gentleman assured him that owing to the expenses he had incurred in his defence he would actually receive no more than £3,000. Mr. Beck informed him that he had agreed to accept £5,000 simply as compensation for his personal injuries, the injustice done to him, and the suffering he had endured; but that his agreement did not cover anything in the shape of actual financial losses which he had sustained. The statement made to him was that at the time of Mr. Beck's apprehension and conviction he had large commercial interests, and interests in land and other properties of great, though possibly, speculative value. He had not only the promise, but the actual enjoyment, of a prosperous business career. Owing to Mr. Beck's incarceration, he understood that he had had to make great sacrifices, because many of his interests were, to a large extent, in Norway, and it was, therefore, impossible that he could manage those affairs from prison in this country. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had the particulars of Mr. Beck's claims in that respect before him, amounting to many times the £5,000 proposed to be given him by this Vote, and he would like the right, hon. Gentleman to consider them with the view of raising the amount due to Mr. Beck, or of allowing them to go before some impartial Committee for proof and consideration. He knew that his right hon. friend would possibly say that these were the mischances of life, incidents of even an advanced civilisation, the risk of which had to be taken by every individual citizen, and that £5,000 possibly equalled or exceeded any sum previously offered under such circumstances by this or any other country. But he held that Mr. Beck's case was essentially different from any other; he had endured two wrongful and unjust convictions against him in one life and his personal and commercial position was very different from that of any previous ordinary convict even wrongfully convicted. He hoped, under these circumstances, the House would have a sympathetic regard, not only to the question of the public rights which ought to be vindicated, but also to the individual rights of Mr. Beck. He ventured to say £5,000 was inadequate compensation bearing in mind the deductions that had to be made for the necessary expenses that Mr. Beck had been put to, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way, even at this eleventh hour, to increase it, for such compensation was a first charge on our civilisation.

MR. ASQUITH (Fifeshire, E.)

said he was not surprised that his hon. friend should have thought fit to raise this discussion. There was no morn appalling experience than that an innocent man should be wrongly convicted and suffer punishment. The Government had been perfectly right, in the exceptional circumstances of this case, in proposing that some solatium, at any rate, should be given out of the Exchequer. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had rightly said that pecuniary compensation for such sufferings was impossible. He did not propose to enter on personal aspects of the case. He had no doubt the Government had carefully considered them. He desired, rather, to make one or two observations on the more general considerations of public policy which the case suggested. It was said, with a certain amount of truth, that such a case was not likely to recur. It involved, indeed, a conjunction of coincidences which might well be described as a real tragedy of error. They were not likely, it was said, to have two men whose handwriting was so similar and also who were in face so like one another that a number of witnesses, quite independently, swore to the identity of one, while apparently describing the other. But the improbability of a recurrence did not answer his plea. The fact that such a thing had occurred, and might possibly occur again, justified the contention that the whole of the machinery concerned should be exposed to due and vigilant scrutiny. He did not agree that any blame attached to the police. An impartial Committee, strongly constituted, had concluded that no shadow of blame attached to them. They did their duty, not only according to the ordinary standards, but with exceptional vigilance, and to them the ultimate establishment of Mr. Beck's innocence was largely due. They might, therefore, leave the police out of the case. The first mistake, indeed the mistake which was the origin of all the subsequent mistakes, the Committee said, was a mistake of the law on the part of the Judge. On that he expressed no opinion of his own. He was bound to accept the law laid down by authorities of so much weight. If there had not been, according to them, a misruling on the part of the Judge who presided at the trial, or if that misruling could have been sot right by some tribunal competent to the task, the mischief would have been avoided. The inference to his mind was clear—and it was in favour of a conclusion at which he had arrived twenty years ago, and which had not in the least been shaken by administrative experience at the Home Office—there ought to be in this country, as in every other civilised country, some form of criminal appeal. He was not pretending for a moment to sketch out what the mode of procedure ought to be; but he welcomed as an instalment in that direction the recommendation of the Committee, which had been acted upon by the Government to make it compulsory on the part of a Judge, when a point of law was raised on a criminal trial, to state a case for the consideration of another Court.

But here he must part company with the Cammittee in so far as it suggested that the Home Office was guilty of some breach of duty in not setting that mistake of law right. In his opinion, and he could not state it too clearly, it was not the duty of the Home Office to deal with the state of the law. Mistakes in law were properly dealt with by a judicial tribunal; and the Home Office was bound to take the law as laid down at a trial by a Judge of the Superior Court, or of Assize or Central Criminal Court, upon the interpretation of a statute or the admissibility of evidence. The notion of setting up a Committee formed of a little body of selected lawyers to take to pieces the findings of Judges was a wholly impractical solution. Where were such gentlemen to come from? Were they to be Civil servants? Were they to be gentlemen called to the Bar or admitted as solicitors, and who, through no fault of their own, were without the practical experience which came from the main pursuit and business of their lives? What principle would be applied to the selection of half-a-dozen gentlemen to be entrusted with the duty of reviewing judicial decisions? He dismissed the suggestion as wholly impracticable. The original mistake was one of law, and in that he did not think the Home Office was to blame. Where he thought it was to blame was when it was discovered, as it was, after the unfortunate man had been two years in prison by evidence beyond all cavil, that his supposed identity with Smith, a person convicted of a similar offence, was disproved. When the identity of the two men was disproved by the new evidence the Home Office did right in forwarding that new evidence to the learned Judge who tried the case; and, seeing that the actual documents were forwarded, how the Judge could have treated it as other than official evidence, when if he had read it he would have seen that it was the official document of the prison authorities showing that one man was circumcised and the other was not, remained an unexplained mystery. Where the Home Office went wrong was when they acquiesced in the opinion of the learned Judge that, whether or not the two men were the same, the stream of other evidence was sufficient to convict. When the Home Office discovered that Smith and Beck were not the same person they should have pursued the investigation further. Here they committed an error of judgment.

As to changes in the Home Office machinery which would make a recurrence of such an unhappy affair impossible he had one or two suggestions to make. First, he was surprised that the case was not submitted to the head of the Department. In every case which presented points of substantial doubt and difficulty, and in which the issues were so serious, a final decision ought not to be taken until the responsible head of the Home Office had had an opportunity of considering all the facts. Without arrogating to the Minister any superhuman powers of intuition, there was the advantage of bringing a fresh mind to bear on the circumstances. In the second place, there should be closer and more active co-ordination between the several Departments, between the police, the Public Prosecutor, and the Criminal department of the Home Office. He could not doubt that if there had been a little more constant communication between the departments associated with the machinery of justice the grave error committed might have been remedied earlier. Lastly, there should be a strengthening of the Criminal Department of the Home Office by an infusion of gentlemen with practical experience of the administration of the law. He dissented altogether from the censure which had been applied to the clerks at the Home Office who prepared the minutes. The high qualifications of first-class clerks in the Civil Service were universally recognised, and anybody with experience at the Home Office must acknowledge with gratitude the efficient service the clerks of that Department rendered. But the burden cast upon them should not be too heavy. They should be adequate in numbers. If the discussion assisted towards the smooth working of the machinery of the Home Office it would be useful, and although nothing could compensate the unfortunate victim of the unhappy blunder, he hoped in the result a recurrence would be prevented.


I certainly cannot complain of the excellent tone and temper by which this debate has been characterised. I think we are all actuated by the same idea. We all admit that a grave miscarriage of justice has taken place, and our great desire is to render the recurrence of such a miscarriage impossible. I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member who initiated this debate has not read very carefully either the Report or the recommendations of the Committee, or possibly the case itself, because he has certainly made a suggestion which, with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, I join in strongly repudiating, viz., that there is a charge against the conduct of the police in the matter.


said his remarks on that point had been entirely misunderstood. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife that the police behaved well in this case, except on one point, and that was the readiness with which the moment a complaint was made they clapped somebody into prison. Why could they not have waited a week or two to make good their case?


That is a different point. It is not what I understood the hon. Gentleman to say, but I at once accept his disclaimer, I am only anxious to make it perfectly clear that the police behaved properly in this case, and that that was the unanimous finding of the Committee. My duty has been greatly lightened by the excellent speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite in defence of the Department of which he was at one time the head. That defence comes much better from him than it would have done from me who am at present in charge of the Home Office, but I cordially endorse all that he has said about the staff, who, I think, with all deference to the Committee, have received in the Report rather less consideration than they deserved.

But what the Committee will chiefly desire to hear from me is how far we propose to carry out the recommendations of the Committee. Perhaps I might first allude to the appointment of the Committee of Inquiry. I assure the House that when this case was brought to my notice in July last there was no delay whatever in taking action in favour of the unfortunate man Mr. Beck. Directly we were informed by the police that it had been established that John Smith, and not Adolf Beck, was the author of the frauds in 1904, and that there was the strongest possible presumption that John Smith and not Adolf Beck was responsible for the frauds in 1896, we at once took steps for the provisional release of Mr. Beck, which was carried out on July 19th, and was confirmed a few days afterwards by a free pardon in respect of both convictions. A strong desire was expressed at the time, not only that there should be compensation, but also that an exhaustive inquiry should be made into this miscarriage of justice. We at once set about the appointment of a Committee, and I think both this House and the country generally were perfectly satisfied as to the impartiality of the Committee we appointed. We gave the Committee the freest possible hand in the conduct of the inquiry; they had at their disposal every document in the Home Office connected with the case. The Committee themselves state in their Report that every assistance was given them by the officials of the Department, and that they were given a perfectly free hand as to whether their proceedings should be conducted in public or otherwise. I have heard it said that there was considerable delay in the appointment of this Committee. I will only point out in passing that Parliament had separated and the Courts were not sitting, and under such circumstances it is not an easy matter to get together an important Committee of this sort. There was no avoidable delay in the appointment of the Committee, and I am glad to think that the personnel of the Committee give complete satisfaction.

In their Report the Committee, first of all, acquit the police of all blame, and they criticise the action of a prison governor for not fully recording the marks of the convict Smith. They also criticise an officer of the Public Prosecutor's Department, who had charge of the prosecution, for not paying enough attention to facts which might have shown that Mr. Beck was not the same person as Smith. In their next finding the Committee state that the Recorder of London, who tried Mr. Beck in 1896, made the cardinal error which led to the miscarriage of justice by giving a ruling—which the Committee think was wrong in law—that excluded evidence which the Committee believe would have established Mr. Beck's innocence. Then they criticise certain subordinate members of the Home Office staff for failing to see that the evidence which the Judge excluded ought to have been considered, and for failing to see the full bearing on the case of the fact, discovered by the Home Office in 1898, that Smith was circumcised, and that, therefore, Mr. Beck could not be Smith.

What are the recommendations of the Committee based upon that Report? They say, first of all, that as there is at present no power to compel a Judge to state a case for the consideration of the Court of Crown Cases Reserved—if there had been the Committee think the miscarriage would have been remedied—there should be an alteration in the law, and that a short Act should be passed providing that on the motion to the Court of Crown Cases Reserved on good prima facie grounds the Court should have powers to grant a Rule calling on the Crown to support the ruling impugned; in other words, that there should be an alteration in the law to bring up a case to the Court of Crown Cases Reserved, whether the Judge is willing to state a case or not. To meet that recommendation a Bill has been introduced in another place, which, I trust, will before long come before this House. I should like here to say, speaking for myself personally, and, I believe, for several of my colleagues—though the matter has not been considered by the Governmet—that we are in favour of some form of Court of Criminal Appeal, or Court for reviewing criminal cases. Certainly there will be no objection to any proposal of the kind from the Department over which I have the honour to preside.


In matters of practice as well as in matters of law?


We should be out of order in discussing the actual form it should take; I am simply expressing a pious opinion in favour of some form of Court of Criminal Appeal in this country. I say that not on behalf of the Government, because the Government have not considered it, but on my own behalf, and I believe the learned Attorney-General fully shares my views. The next recommendation was that in cases involving reference to a Judge the Public Prosecutor, where he had acted, should be consulted. This recommendation has already been carried out. The next recommendation was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, viz., that the different public authorities concerned should be better co-ordinated to ensure intercommunication of material information, and to make it impossible that material information acquired by one authority, affecting a particular prisoner, should not be communicated to all. Directions have already been given which will secure this in all criminal cases involving a decision of the Home Secretary.


asked whether any directions had been given with reference to giving prisoners access to documents, the Commissioners having strongly commented on the fact that there was no power in criminal cases to require the production of documents.


I cannot give a categorical answer on that point, but all the recommendations made by the Committee under this head have been carried out by the Department. Another important point to which attention was called by the Committee was with regard to the recording of previous convictions against prisoners, and the prison orders in that respect have been modified. The regulations as to police identification by witnesses have also been remodelled and strengthened, and the regulations as to prisoners' marks have been wholly recast. Since Smith was convicted in 1877, the old mark system, which, as the House will know, was very unscientific, has been superseded—first by the Bertillon system, which in its turn has given place to the finger-print system, which I believe is for this purpose as nearly perfect as possible. Certainly, that system would have rendered the mistaking of Mr. Beck for Smith an absolute impossibility. I now come to the recommendations of the Committee with regard to the staff at the Home Office. The Committee say that they— Consider that the failure of the Home Office to rectify the miscarriage of justice was principally due to their want of appreciation of the legal error committed in excluding the evidence for the defence at the 1896 trial, and that the subordinate officials of the Department who deal with criminal work require technical training. They recommend, therefore, that the legal element in the staff should be strengthened. I should like to associate myself with the expressions of regret of the right hon. Gentleman opposite at being unable to see eye to eye with the Committee, with all possible deference. I would express my strong regret that before they recommended so important a change in the organisation of the Criminal Department they did not make a direct inquiry into the present constitution of the department and its working; because if they had done so they would have discovered that considerable changes had taken place in the department since 1897–1898 when this case was considered. I regret that before making these sweeping charges against the department they did not call either Sir K. Digby or Mr. Chalmers to give evidence on the point. Further, I cannot help thinking that the Committee have unintentionally done something less than justice to the junior officials of that department, who were not called before the Committee, and had no opportunity of making any explanation of the charges brought against them. There is no doubt that a regrettable mistake was made, but the responsibility must rest chiefly upon the superiors, and that responsibility was most gallantly and loyally accepted by Sir K. Digby before the Committee. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that such cases are not likely to recur, but that we desire to make their recurrence absolutely impossible. I consider that with the changes which have been made it will be practically impossible for a case of this sort to occur in future, at all events in the same way or to the same degree. I do not think the difficulty would be met by making the staff a legal staff, as has been suggested. I have every confidence in the criminal branch of the Home Office, and I consider them entirely deserving of the esteem and confidence of the public. Any set of men who had to deal, as they had to deal, with this most unusual case would, in my opinion, have distrusted, as they distrusted, the defence founded on the mere similarity of handwriting, when compared with the overwhelmingly strong direct evidence for the prosecution. It must be remembered that they dealt with the case as it was presented to them in 1898, and not as we now do in the light thrown on it in 1904. That makes a very considerable difference.

I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman opposite on the question of strengthening the department. I will only say that we have already relieved the department of a considerable amount of work which they had to perform in addition to their criminal duties, thereby enabling them to concentrate their attention upon those duties. Perhaps the Committee would like to know how that department is manned. At the head of the department there is an Under-Secretary who has had twelve years official experience as one of the County Court Judges of Birmingham, and who has been on several occasions a Commissioner of Assize. He has also been the senior legal Member of the Council of India, and is a lawyer with great experience. The second head of the department is one of the most brilliant Civil servants in this country, and is himself a barrister of some sixteen years standing. The third in the department is also a barrister and has many years experience. It is perfectly true that this particular case was not brought to the attention of the then Secretary of State, Sir Matthew White Ridley; it was dealt with by Sir Kenelm Digby. But I may say, in reference to certain remarks that have been made in the course of the debate, that I am perfectly certain that every single clerk who signs a minute, if he does not write the minute himself, is held to confirm it, and that he never signs it unless he has read it. It seems to be thought that the department is wanting in legal advice. I would point out, on that, that the Secretary of State has not only got the legal assistance of his own Department, but that he can always go, and does constantly go, to the Law Officers of the Crown, and even to the Lord Chancellor himself, for advice, which is never refused. I think, therefore, there is every ground for thinking that the best possible legal opinion in the country is at the disposal of the Secretary of State.

My hon. friend the Member for South Islington expressed the opinion that sufficient compensation had not been given to Mr. Beck. It is, of course, quite impossible to compensate any man adequately for a false imprisonment of six or seven years. The question in such a case is what is a fair solatium to offer in the circumstances. Although the fact does not appear in the Report, this particular matter was most carefully considered by the Committee presided over by the Master of the Rolls, and I am authorised to say that the £5,000 which was given was the sum which was recommended by that Committee, and that it was not included in the Report because they did not think it was within their province to do so. I conferred with the Committee, and I ascertained that that was the amount which they thought was a fair amount to offer, and that sum was offered to Mr. Beck.


asked whether that was done without hearing Mr. Beck in any way.


It was after hearing the whole of the circumstances of the case as put before the Committee. We had to consider this offer relatively with offers which had been made in the past under somewhat similar circumstances. The £5,000 which was offered to Mr. Beck is the largest amount which has ever been offered in this country to any person who has been placed in similar circumstances, and is greatly in excess of anything that has been given on like occasions in other countries. The sum of £5,000 has only been given once before, and it was given in 1858 to Mr. Barber, a solicitor, who was wrongfully convicted and transported to Norfolk Island, where he suffered great hardships. This was the largest amount ever given before. In 1862 £500 was given to Roscovitch, who was convicted of forgery in 1858, and sentenced to six years, penal servitude, of which he served five. It was afterwards discovered that Roscovitch was really guilty, and that he had imposed on the Secretary of State by a clever forgery. In 1879 £1,000 was paid to William Habron, who was convicted of murder, the capital sentence being commuted, and he was subsequently released after three years imprisonment. In 1880 £100 each was paid to Frost and Smith who had been wrongly convictd of burglary; £1,000 to Edmund Galley, a gipsy, convicted of murder in 1836 and transported apparently until 1879, who ultimately received a free pardon and £1,000 "not as an acknowledgment of innocence, but as an act of grace." This occurred in 1881. In 1882 £500 each and expenses were paid to Johnson and Clowes, two respectable farmers who were convicted by perjury of mutilating a man, and who were sentenced to ten years penal servitude, two years of which they served. In 1889 £800 each was paid to Brannagan and Murphy, who were wrongly convicted of burglary and sentenced to penal servitude for life, and they served nine years each. In other cases that have occurred the sums paid have been mostly quite small, ranging between £5 and £10. The only other large sum was £600 paid for a wrongful arrest by the Colchester police, who arrested a man in New Zealand and brought him over to England. In this country and in Italy, Holland, and the United States there are no laws as to compensation, and in Italy, Holland, and the United States no compensation has ever been given. In France there have been twelve cases and the maximum sum paid is £3,000; Belgium, five cases, maximum £40; Germany, one case, £700, and this case is still sub judice; Sweden, 9 cases, maximum £50. I do not see how we could have gone further in this direction, especially having regard to the fact that the Committee which carefully considered the case thought that that would be a proper sum to offer to Mr. Beck.

MR. MARKHAM (Nottinghamshire, Mansfield)

Will the right hon. Gentleman say "Yes" or "No" to the question, "Did you in the first instance offer Mr. Beck £2,000?"?


The suggestion in that question is that Mr. Beck was first offered £2,000, and that, because of an attack in a certain newspaper, that amount was increased. That is not so. We offered Mr. Beck, I think the amount was £1,500, before we ascertained what his costs were, and then £2,000 was offered, and no alteration of that sum was made until the Committee had considered the whole case—a consideration which entirely altered the gravity of the case. There is no foundation whatever for the suggestion that we were put up to auction, so to speak, by a newspaper.


Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Mr. Beck had an opportunity of stating to the Committee what was the financial loss he had sustained?


My memory does not serve me on that point, and I cannot say whether Mr. Beck stated what his loss was. But the Committee considered the point, and they suggested that £5,000 would be a right and proper sum to offer. I apologise to the Committee for the length of my remarks. The chief reason of this Motion is not a vote of censure, which does not apply to myself or to any representative of the Home Office, but I understand that it is prompted by a desire to learn what steps the Government had taken to render as far as possible any repetition of such an injustice in the future.


said it was most unfortunate that the time for discussion should be so limited, and he trusted and believed that another opportunity would be afforded at no distant date for discussing many of the questions which were involved in this unfortunate miscarriage of justice. This debate had not been thrown away, even if they only took into account the assurance given by the Home Secretary that the Government, with the assistance of the Law Officers of the Crown, were seriously considering the establishment of a Court of Criminal Appeal. He echoed what had fallen from his hon. friend behind him when he said it should not be confined to mere consideration of legal points, but that, under such conditions as might be found practical, a review of the facts of the case should be open to a prisoner who conceived that he had been unjustly convicted. He wished also to associate himself with the expression of opinion from his right hon. and learned friend the Member for East Fife, and the Home Secretary, as to the high character and ability which was displayed by the Home Office officials, and, indeed, by most of the officials of this great Department of State.

He, however, dissociated himself from the somewhat complacent attitude of his right hon. friend the Member for East Fife and his right hon. friend the Secretary for the Home Department. The House was not satisfied with the action and the inaction of the Treasury and of the police in this matter. He was perfectly sure that he was only expressing the opinion generally entertained when he said that the action of the police had not been altogether satisfactory in the matter of this prosecution. That might be partly due to individual remissness and partly to defects in the system. He was perfectly satisfied that the system of identification which was pursued in regard to prisoners was most unsatisfactory. He said so not for the purpose of finding fault, but in order to direct the attention of the Home Secretary to the matter, so that he might cause some alteration in the system of identification. If a man in good position, well dressed, and of genteel appearance was arrested, and had to be paraded for the purpose of identification, he was probably the only one among those presented for identification who had the appearance of a gentleman. That was an unfortunate thing in the case of Mr. Beck. He was well dressed and presented the appearance of the person who undoubtedly did commit the frauds. The identification was effected in the company of corner boys and loafers. He hoped the Home Secretary would consider whether some more effective mode of identification than this could not be secured. Why was it that when a number of women failed to identify Mr. Beck, this information was not sent to the prisoner's solicitor? He had made a careful examination of the evidence and he was perfectly satisfied that facilities were not afforded to the prisoner's counsel or solicitor which might have been. He further called the attention of the Home Secretary to the fact that the prisoner's solicitor applied for documents from time to time to assist him in demonstrating that Mr. Beck and Smith were not one and the same person. These documents were of the most vital importance, for if the solicitor could establish that Mr. Beck and Smith were not the same person, as ultimately turned out to be the fact, Mr. Beck's immediate release would have been attained. The hon. Member did not know that in the whole of his experience of the administration of justice he had ever known a case which provoked one's indignation more than the treatment which Mr. Beck's solicitor received from Sir Robert Anderson. He gave the solicitor the laconic reply that these documents could not be shown and could not be produced. Why not? They were described as confidential. The Inquiry Committee stated that in their judgment there was not the slightest foundation for describing them as confidential. He hoped the House would bear with him when he referred to the peremptory, and what he must describe as the insolent, refusal of the documents. He trusted the Home Secretary would not allow this state of things to continue longer. An inspector and a sergeant of police asked whether, in their opinion, the documents should be produced or not. Could anything be more ludicrous, anything more unintelligent? He hoped that henceforth when it came to the production of any document which might be required in the interest of a prisoner's defence the question whether or not it should be produced would depend on something more than the judgment of an inspector and sergeant of police.

There were other matters in connection with the conduct of the authorities which certainly required elucidation. How was it when the case was presented at the Old Bailey the solicitor of the Treasury, or the gentleman acting for him, instructed his counsel that Smith and Mr. Beck were one and the same person when he knew, as he must have known, that if these two men were different Mr. Beck could not have been guilty. How was it that the counsel for the prosecution was instructed to shut out the admission of evidence which demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt that Mr. Beck was not Smith. He said with a full sense of responsibility that the gentleman who represented the Treasury at the trial deliberately instructed counsel to shut out evidence which would have proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that Smith and Mr. Beck were not identical, and that Smith and the criminal of 1896 were identical. That was a matter which had made an impression on the public mind, because it showed that the conduct of the Treasury was deserving of the most severe censure. It did not end there. The public also wanted to know why Inspector Waldeck was removed from the case.


If the hon. Member will look at the Report of the Committee he will see these words— We are quite satisfied that there was nothing whatever to complain of in the conduct of the trial by the prosecution.


said he did not care what the Report said. He had read the evidence. He was perfectly prepared to substantiate the statement he had made. He was animated by no feeling against any of the gentlemen in question. Though the Committee said that they did not think any complaint could be made as to the conduct of the prosecution, he said the public were entitled to something more. They were entitled to look at the evidence. It was

not a matter merely of the Beck case. It was a matter of much larger moment. Every Member of the House, and no one more than the right hon. Gentleman who held the high office of Home Secretary, desired that there should be absolute purity in the administration of justice, and at some later time, when it arose again, he would go into the question of the conduct of the Treasury in this prosecution. No adequate explanation had been given why Inspector Waldeck was removed from the case. He was removed on the plea that he was too busy with other duties. It was curious that Waldeck's removal from the case was coincident with the report by him to Mr. Sims that Mr. Beck and Smith were not one and the same person. He dared say it was all capable of explanation. The Daily Mail, though not a paper to which he was favourably disposed, deserved great credit for the part it took in pressing this matter. The public were now watching for the decision at which the Government would arrive.

And, it being half-past Five of the clock, the Chairman, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th March, proceeded to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.

Question put, "That Item BBB (Compensations for Wrongful Imprisonment) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Lough.)

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 204; Noes, 257. (Division List No. 69.)

Abraham, William (Cork, NE) Caldwell, James Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Cameron, Robert Duffy, William J.
Allen, Charles P. Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Duncan, J. Hastings
Ambrose, Robert Causton, Richard Knight Dunn, Sir William
Asquith, Rt Hn HerbertHenry Cawley, Frederick Edwards, Frank
Barlow, John Emmott Channing, Francis Allston Ellice, Capt EC(SAndrw'sBghs)
Barran, Rowland Hirst Cheetham, John Frederick Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Clancy, John Joseph Emmott, Alfred
Bell, Richard Condon, Thomas Joseph Esmonde, Sir Thomas
Boland John Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) Evans,SirFrancisH.(Maidstone)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Cremer, William Randal Eve, Harry Trelawney
Brigg, John Crombie, John William Fenwick, Charles
Broadhurst, Henry Crooks, William Ferguson. R. C. Munro (Leith)
Brown, George M (Edinburgh) Dalziel, James Henry Ffrench, Peter
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) Findlay, Flexander(Lanark,NE
Bryce, Rt. Hon James Delany, William Flavin, Michael Joseph
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Flynn James Christopher
Burke, E Haviland- Dobbie, Joseph Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)
Buxton, Sydney, Charles Donelan, Captain A. Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. MacVeagh, Jeremiah Runciman, Walter
Fuller, J. M. F. M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Furness, Sir Christopher M'Crae, George Schwann, Charles E.
Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn M'Kean, John Seely,MajJ.E.B.(Isle of Wight)
Goddard, Daniel Ford M'Kenna, Reginald Shackleton, David James
Grant, Corrie Markham, Arthur Basil Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh,N.) Sheehy, David
Griffith, Ellis J. Mooney, John J. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Morgan, J.Lloyd (Carmarthen) Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard Morley,Rt.Hon John(Montrose) Slack, John Bamford
Hammond, John Moss, Samuel Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Harmsworth, R. Leicester Moulton, John Fletcher Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Harrington, Timothy Murphy, John Soares, Ernest J.
Harwood, George Nannetti, Joseph P. Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R.(Northants
Hayden, John Patrick Newnes, Sir George Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D Norman, Henry Stevenson, Francis S.
Helme, Norval Watson Norton, Capt. Cecil William Strachey, Sir Edward
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Nussey, Thomas Willans Sullivan, Donal
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) O'Brien, F. X. (Cork) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Higham, John Sharpe O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid) Tennant, Harold John
Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.
Holland, Sir William Henry O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.) Tomkinson, James
Horniman, Frederick John O'Connor, John (Kildare, N. Toulmin, George
Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) O'Dowd, John Ure, Alexander
Jacoby, James Alfred O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Johnson, John O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N Wallace, Robert
Joicey, Sir James O'Malley, William Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Jones,David Brynmor (Swansea O'Mara, James Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Jones, Leif (Appleby) O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Jones, William(Carnarvonshire) Partington, Oswald Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney)
Jordan, Jeremiah Paulton, James Mellor Weir, James Galloway
Kearley, Hudson E. Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Kilbride, Denis Perks, Robert William White, Patrick (Meath, N.)
Kitson, Sir James Power, Patrick Joseph Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)
Labouchere, Henry Price, Robert John Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Lambert, George Priestley, Arthur Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Lamont, Norman Rea, Russell Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Langley, Batty Reckitt, Harold James Wills, Arthur Walters(N.Dorset
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Reddy, M. Wilson, John (Durham Mid.)
Layland-Barratt, Francis Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington) Richards,Thomas(W.Monm'th) Wood, James
Levy, Maurice Rickett, J. Compton Woodhouse,SirJT.(Huddersf'd)
Lewis, John Herbert Roberts, John H. (Denbighs) Young, Samuel
Lloyd-George, David Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Yoxall, James Henry
Lundon, W. Robson, William Snowdon
Lyell, Charles Henry Roche, John TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Roe, Sir Thomas Lough and Mr. Atherley.
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Rose, Charles Day Jones.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Banner, John S. Harmood Butcher, John George
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.
Allhusen, AugustusHenryEden Bartley, Sir George C. T Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire
Allsopp, Hon. George Bathurst, Hon Allen Benjamin Cayzer, Sir Charles William
Anson, Sir William Reynell Beach,RtHn.Sir MichaelHicks Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.HughO Bentinck, Lord Henry C Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)
Arrold, Sir William Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Chamberlain,RtHn.J A.(Worc,
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Bignold, Sir Arthur Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry
Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hon.SirH. Bigwood, James Chapman, Edward
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy Bingham, Lord Clive, Captain Percy A.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Blundell, Colonel Henry Coates, Edward Feetham
Bain, Colonel James Robert Bond, Edward Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.
Baird, John George Alexander Boscawen, Arthur Griffith. Coghill, Douglas Harry
Balcarres, Lord Bowles,Lt.-Col.HF.(Middlesex) Cohen, Benjamin Louis
Baldwin, Alfred Brassey, Albert Collings, Rt Hon. Jesse
Balfour,RtHon.A.J.(Manch'r.) Brodrick, Rt, Hon. St. John Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole
Balfour,RtHn Gerald W.(Leeds Brotherton, Edward Allen Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas
Balfour,Kenneth R. (Christch.) Bull, William James Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Burdett-Coutts, W. Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge.
Craig, CharlesCurtis (Antrim, S.) Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Randles, John S.
Cripps, Charles Alfred Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T (Denbigh Rankin, Sir James
Cross, Herb Shepherd (Bolton) Kenyon-Slaney, Rt Hon CoI.W Ratcliff, R. F.
Crossley, Rt Hon. Sir Savile Kerr, John Reid, James (Greenock)
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Keswick, William Remnant, James Farquharson
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Kimber, Sir Henry Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Davenport, William Bromley. King, Sir Henry Seymour Renwick, George
Davies,SirHoratioD.(Chatham) Laurie, Lieut.-General Ridley, S. Forde
Denny, Colonel Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Dickinson, Robert Edmund Lawrence,SirJoseph (Monm'th) Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Dickson, Charles Scott Lawson,Hn H.L.W (Mile End) Robinson, Brooke
Dimsdale, Rt.Hon.SirJosephC. Lawson, JohnGrant(Yorks NR Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Dorington, Rt Hon Sir John E. Lee,ArthurH (Hants,Fareham) Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers. Legge, Col Hon Heneage Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Dyke, Rt.Hon.SirWilliamHart Leveson-Gower, FrederickN S Round, Rt. Hon. James
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Llewellyn, Evan Henry Royds, Clement Molyneux
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Lockwood, Lieut-Col. A. R. Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Fergusson,Rt Hn. SirJ.(Manc'r) Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Lang,Rt.Hn.Walter (Bristol,S.) Samuel,SirHarryS. (Limehouse
Finlay,SirR B.(Inv'rn'ssB'ghs) Lowe, Francis William Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Fisher, William Hayes Lowther, C. (Cumb, Eskdale) Seton-Karr, Sir Henry
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose Loyd, Archie Kirkman Simeon, Sir Barrington
Fitzroy, Hon. EdwardAlgernon Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Sinclair, Louis Romford
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Flower, Sir Ernest Lyttelton, Rt, Hon. Alfred Smith,Abel H. (Hertford,East)
Forster, Henry William Macdona, John Cumming Smith,H.C(North'mb, Tynside)
Foster,PhilipS.(Warwick,S.W.) MacIver, David (Liverpool) Smith,RtHnJ.Parker(Lanarks)
Galloway, William Johnson Maconochie, A. W. Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Gardner, Ernest M'Arthur, Charles Liverpool) Spencer, Sir E. (W.Bromwich)
Garfit, William M'Calmont, Colonel James Stanley,Hon.Arthur(Ormskirk)
Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. M'Iver,SirLewis(Edinburgh,W) Stanley, Rt.Hon. Lord (Lancs.)
Godson, SirAugustusFrederick Majendie, James A. H. Stewart, Sir J.MarkM'Taggart
Gordon,Hn.J E.(Elgin&Nairn) Manners, Lord Cecil Stock, James Henry
Gordon,MajEvans-(T'rH'mlets Marks, Harry Hananel Stroyan, John
Gorst, Rt, Hon. Sir John Eldon Martin, Richard Biddulph Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Maxwell, W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire Talbot,Rt.Hn.J G.(Oxf'dUniv.
Goulding, Edward Alfred Mildmay, Francis Bignham Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Graham, Henry Robert Milvain, Thomas Thornton, Percy M.
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Molesworth, Sir Lewis Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Greene,HenryD. (Shrewsbury) Montagu,Hon.J.Scott (Hants.) Tritton, Charles Ernest
Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Tuff, Charles
Greville, Hon. Ronald Morgan,DavidJ (Walthamatow Tuke, Sir John Batty
Hain, Edward Morpeth, Viscount Turnour, Viscount
Halsey Rt, Hon. Thomas F. Morrell, George Herbert Vincent,Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield)
Hambro, Charles Eric Morrison, James Archibald Walker, Col. William Hall
Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Walrond Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Hare, Thomas Leigh Mount, William Arthur Wanklyn, James Leslie
Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th) Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Warde, Col. C. E.
Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Welby. Lt.-Col.AC'.E. (Taunton)
Hay, Hon. Claude George Murray, Col. Wyndham Bath) Welby, Sir Charles G.E (Notts.)
Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Myers, William Henry Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Heath, SirJames(Staffords.NW Nicholson, William Graham Whiteley,H.(Ashton-und.Lyne)
Helder, Augustus Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Parker, Sir Gilbert Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Hogg, Lindsay Parkes, Ebenezer Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Hornby, Sir William Henry Peel, Hon. William Robert Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Horner, Frederick William Peel,Hn.Wm Robert Wellesley Wilson-Todd, SirW.H.(Yorks
Hoult, Joseph Pemberton, John S. G. Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Howard,John(Kent,Faversham Percy, Earl Worsley-Taylor, HenryWilson
Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham Pierpoint, Robert Wortley, Rt. Hon C. B. Stuart
Hozier, Hon.James HenryCecil Pilkington, Colonel Richard Wylie, Alexander
Hudson, George Bickersteth Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Hunt, Rowland Plummer, Sir Walter R. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.) Pretyman, Ernest George Alexander Acland-Hood and
Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Viscount Valentia.
Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred Purvis, Robert
Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Pym, C. Guy

Original Question put, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £12,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Departments of the Solicitor for the affairs of His Majesty's Treasury, King's Proctor, and Director

of Public Prosecutions, the Cost of Prosecutions, and other Legal Prosecutions."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 257; Noes, 209. (Division List No. 70.)

Agg-Gardener, James Tynte Dalrymple, Sir Charles Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Davenport, William Bromley- Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Davies, Sir Horatio, D (Chatham) Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W
Allsopp, Hon. George Denny, Colonel Kerr, John
Anson, Sir William Reynell Dickinson, Robert Edmund Keswick, William
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. Dickson, Charles Scott Kimber Sir Henry
Arrol, Sir William Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C. King, Sir Henry Seymour
Atkinson, Rt. Hon John Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E. Laurie, Lieut.-General
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon Sir H Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)
Bailey, James (Walworth) Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)
Bain, Colonel James Robert Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn, Edward Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. NR
Baird, John George Alexander Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r. Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham
Balcarres, Lord Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Baldwin, Alfred Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Finlay, Sir RB (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs) Llewellyn, Evan Henry
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W.(Leeds Fisher, William Hayes Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.) FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Banbury, Sir Frederick George FitzRoy, Hon. Edward Algernon Long, Col Charles W (Evesham)
Banner, John S Harmood- Flannery, Sir Fortescue Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.
Banbury, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Flower, Sir Ernest Lowe, Francis William
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Forster, Henry William Lowther C. (Cumb. Eskdale)
Bathurst, Hon Allen Benjamin Galloway, William Johnson Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Gardner, Ernest Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Garfit, William Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Bignold, Sir Arthur Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Macdona, John Cumming
Bigwood, James Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn) MacIver, David (Liverpool)
Bingham, Lord Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H'mlets Maconochie, A. W.
Blunden, Colonel Henry Gorst, Rt Hon Sir John Eldon M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Bond, Edward Goschen, Hon. George Joachim M'Calmont, Colonel James
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Goulding, Edward Alfred M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W
Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex Graham, Henry Robert Majendie, James A. H.
Brassey, Albert Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Manners, Lord Cecil
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Marks, Harry Hananel
Brotherton, Edward Allen Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) Martin, Richard Biddulph
Bull, William James Greville, Hon. Ronald Maxwell, W. H. (Dumfrieshire
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hain, Edward Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Butcher, John George Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J A. (Glasgow) Hambro, Charles Eric Milvain, Thomas
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry Molesworth, Sir Lewis
Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire Hare, Thomas Leigh Montagu, Hon. Scott (Hants.)
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th) Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Hay, Hon Claude George Morpeth, Viscount
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. E (Worc) Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Morrell, George Herbert
Chapman, Edward Heath, Sir James (Staffords NW Morrison, James Archibald
Clive, Captain Percy A Helder, Augustus Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Coates, Edward Feetham Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Mount, William Arthur
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hogg, Lindsay Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Coghill, Douglas Harry Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Murray Charles J. (Coventry)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Hornby, Sir William Henry Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Horner, Frederick William Myers, William Henry
Colston, Chas, Edw. H. Athole Hoult, Joseph Nicholson, William Graham
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Howard, John (Kent, Faversham Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham Parker, Sir Gilbert
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Parkes, Ebenezer
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) Hudson, George Bickersteth Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Cripps, Charles Alfred Hunt, Rowland Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert Wellesley
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.) Pemberton, John S. G.
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Percy, Earl
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. Pierpoint, Robert
Cust, Henry John C. Jessel, Captain Herbert Morton Pilkington, Colonel Richard
Plummer, Sir Walter R. Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W. Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Seton-Karr, Sir Henry Walker Col. William Hall
Purvis, Robert Simeon, Sir Harrington Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Pym, C. Guy Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Wanklyn, James Leslie
Randles, John S. Skewes-Cox, Thomas Warde, Col. C. E.
Rankin, Sir James Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton)
Ratcliff, R. F. Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside Welby, Sir Charles G. E (Notts.)
Reid, James (Greenock) Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanark) Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Remnant, James Farquharson Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne)
Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Renwick, George Stan ey, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.) Williams Colonel R. (Dorset)
Ridley, S. Forde Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Stock, James Henry Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Stroyan, John Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Robinson, Brooke Ta bot, Lord E. (Chichester) Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)
Rolleston, Sir John F. L. Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert Thornton, Percy M. Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Round, Rt. Hon. James Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. Wylie, Alexander
Royds, Clement Molyneux Tritton, Charles Ernest
Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Tuff, Charles TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Tuke, Sir John Batty Alexander Acland-Hood and
Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford Turnour, Viscount Viscount Valentia.
Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse Vincent, Col. C. E. H Sir (Sheffield
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Horniman, Frederick John
Ainsworth, John Stirling Duffy, William J. Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.
Allen, Charles P. Duncan, J. Hastings Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)
Ambrose, Robert Dunn, Sir William Jacoby, James Alfred
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Edwards, Frank Johnson, John
Atherley-Jones, L. Ellice, Capt EC (S. Andrew's Bghs Joicey, Sir James
Barlow, John Emmott Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea)
Barran, Rowland Hirst Emmott, Alfred Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Esmonde, Sir Thomas Jordan, Jeremiah
Bell, Richard Evans, Sir Francis H.(Maidstone Kearley, Hudson E.
Boland, John Eve, Harry Trelawney Kilbride, Denis
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Fenwick, Charles Kitson, Sir James
Brigg, John Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Labouchere, Henry
Broadhurst, Henry Ffrench, Peter Lambert, George
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE. Lamont, Norman
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Flavin, Michael Joseph Langley, Batty
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Flynn, James Christopher Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Foster, Sir Walter (Derby, Co.) Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)
Burke, E. Haviland- Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Layland-Barratt, Francis
Burns, John Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)
Buxton, Sydney Charles Fuller, J. M. F. Levy, Maurice
Caldwell, James Furness, Sir Christopher Lewis, John Herbert
Cameron, Robert Goddard, Daniel Ford Lloyd-George, David
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Grant, Corrie Lough, Thomas
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick) Lundon, W.
Causton, Richard Knight Griffith, Ellis J. Lyell, Charles Henry
Cawley, Frederick Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J
Channing, Francis Allston Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Cheetham, John Frederick Haldane, Rt, Hon. Richard B. MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Churchill, Winston Spencer Hammond, John M'Crae, George
Clancy, John Joseph Harmsworth, R. Leicester K'Kean, John
Condon, Thos. Joseph Harrington, Timothy M'Kenna, Reginald
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) Harwood, George Markham, Arthur Basil
Cremer, William Randal Hayden, John Patrick Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)
Crombie, John William Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Mooney, John J.
Crooks, William Helme, Norval Watson Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Dalziel, James Henry Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Moss, Samuel
Delany, William Higham, John Sharpe Moulton, John Fletcher
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) Murphy, John
Dobbie, Joseph Holland, Sir William Henry Nannetti, Joseph P.
Donelan, Captain A. Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Newnes, Sir George
Norman, Henry Rickett, J. Compton Toulmin, George
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Nussey, Thomas Willans Robson, William Snowdon Ure, Alexander
O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Roche, John Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid) Roe, Sir Thomas Wallace, Robert
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Rose, Charles Day Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
O'Brien, P. J. (Tepperary, N.) Runciman, Walter Warner, Thomas Courtenay T
O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Schwann, Charles E. Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Seely, Maj J. E. B. (Isle of Wight) Weir, James Galloway
O'Dowd, John Shackleton, David James White, George (Norfolk)
O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N) Sheehy, David White, Patrick (Meath, North
O'Malley, William Shipman, Dr. John G. Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)
O'Mara, James Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Slack, John (Bamford) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Partington, Oswald Smith, Samuel (Flint) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Paulton, James Mellor Soames, Arthur Wellesley Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset
Pease, J A. (Saffron Walden) Soares, Ernest J. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Perks, Robert William Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northant) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Power, Patrick Joseph Stanhope, Hon. Philip James Wood, James
Price, Robert John Stevenson, Francis S. Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd
Priestley, Arthur Strachey, Sir Edward Young, Samuel
Rea, Russell Sullivan, Donal Yoxall, James Henry
Reckitt, Harold James Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffes
Reddy, M. Tennant, Harold John TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Redmond, John E, (Waterford) Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) Herbert Gladstone and Mr.
Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries) Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.) William M'Arthur.
Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th) Tomkinson, James

The Chairman, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 16th March, then proceeded to put forthwith the Question, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £63,930, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the31st day of March, 1905, for Expenditure on the following Services included in the Civil Services Supplementary Estimates, 1904–5.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 262; Noes, 207. (Division List No. 71.)
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Bartley, Sir George C. T. Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)
Allhusen, Augnstus Henry Eden Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Cayzer, Sir Charles William
Allsopp, Hon. George Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn Hugh O. Bignold, Sir Arthur Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A (Worc.)
Arrol, Sir William Bigwood, James Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Bingham, Lord Chapman, Edward
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Blundell, Colonel Henry Clive, Captain Percy A.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Bond, Edward Coates, Edward Feetham
Bain, Colonel James Robert Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.
Baird, John George Alexander Bousfield, William Robert Coghill, Douglas Harry
Balcarres, Lord Bowles, Lt-Col H. F. (Middlesex) Cohen, Benjamin Louis
Baldwin, Alfred Brassey, Albert Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds) Brotherton, Edward Allen Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.) Bull, William James Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Burdett-Coutts, W. Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge
Banner, John S. Harmood- Butcher, John George Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.
Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor) Campbell, Rt. Hn J. A. (Glasgow) Cripps, Charles Alfred
County Courts 10
Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Ireland 860
Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland 60
Scientific Investigations, etc. 9,000
Protectorates 54,000
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh) Rankin, Sir James
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Saville Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W. Ractliff, R. F.
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Kerr, John Reid, James (Greenock)
Cust, Henry John C. Keswick, William Remnant, James Farquharson
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Kimber, Sir Henry Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Davenport, William Bromley King, Sir Henry Seymour Renwick, George
Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham) Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Ridley, S. Forde
Denny, Colonel Laurie, Lieut.-General Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Dickinson, Robert Edmond Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Dickson, Charles Scott Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th) Robinson, Brooke
Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C. Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End) Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N. R Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham) Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Duke, Henry Edward Leggge, Col. Hon. Heneage Round, Rt. Hon. James
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Royds, Clement Molyneux
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Llewellyn, Evan Henry Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'cr) Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse)
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs) Lowe, Francis William Seton-Karr, Sir Henry
Fisher, William Hayes Lowther, C. (Cumb, Eskdale) Shaw-Stewart, Sir H (Renfrew)
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose Loyd, Archie Kirkman Simeon, Sir Barrington
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Flower, Sir Ernest Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Forster, Henry William Macdona, John Cumming Smith. H. C. (North'mbTyneside
Galloway, William Johnson MacIver, David (Liverpool) Smith, Rt. Hn J. Parker (Lanarks)
Garfit, William Maconochie, A. W. Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Spear, John Ward
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick M'Calmont, Colonel James Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn) M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)
Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'rH'mlets Majendie, James A. H. Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon Manners, Lord Cecil Stock, James Henry
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Marks, Harry Hananel Stroyan, John
Goulding, Edward Alfred Martin, Richard Biddulph Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Graham, Henry Robert Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire Talbot, Rt, Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Mildmay, Francis Bingham Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. Thornton, Percy M.
Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.) Milvain, Thomas Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Greville, Hon. Ronald Molesworth, Sir Lewis Tritton, Charles Ernest
Guthrie, Walter Murray Montagu, Hon J. Scott (Hants.) Tuff, Charles
Hain, Edward Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Tuke, Sir John Batty
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Morgan, David J (Walthamstow) Turnour, Viscount
Hambro, Charles Eric Morpeth, Viscount Vincent, Col Sir C. E. H (Sheffield)
Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry Morrell, George Herbert Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Hare, Thomas Leigh Morrison, James Archibald Walker, Col. William Hall
Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th) Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Mount, William Arthur Wanklyn, James Leslie
Hay, Hon. Claude George Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Warde, Colonel C. E
Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunton)
Heath, Sir James (Staffords, N. W Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)
Helder, Augustus Myers, William Henry Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Nicholson, William Graham Whiteley, H. Ashton-und. Lyne
Hogg, Lindsay Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Parker, Sir Gilbert Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Hornby, Sir William Henry Parkes, Ebenezer Willoughby de Eresby. Lord
Horner, Frederick William Pease, Herbert Pike (Darl'ngton) Wilson, A. Stanley (York., E.R.)
Hoult, Joseph Peel, Hn. W. Robert Wellesley Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Howard, John (Kent Faversham Pemberton, John S. G. Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)
Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham Percy, Earl Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Pierpoint, Robert Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Hudson, George Bickersteth Pilkington, Colonel Richard Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Hunt, Rowland Platt-Higgins, Frederick Wylie, Alexander
Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.) Plummer, Sir Walter R.
Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward TELLERS FOR THE AYES-Sir
Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. Purvis, Robert Alexander Acland-Hood and
Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Pym, C. Guy Viscount Valentia.
Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Randles, John S.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Allen, Charles P. Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry
Ainsworth, John Stirling Ambrose, Robert Atherley-Jones, L.
Barlow, John Emmott Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Barran, Rowland Hirst Helme, Norval Watson Perks, Robert William
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Power, Patrick Joseph
Bell, Richard Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Price, Robert John
Boland, John Higham, John Sharpe Priestley, Arthur
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E. Rea, Russell
Brigg, John Holland, Sir William Henry Reckitt Harold J.
Broadhurst, Henry Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Reddy, M.
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Horniman, Frederick John Redmond John E. (Waterford
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Hutchinson Dr. Charles Fredk. Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Jacoby, James Alfred Rickett, J. Compton
Burke, E. Haviland Johnson, John Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Burns, John Joicey, Sir James Robson, William Snowdon
Buxton, Sydney Charles Jones David Brynmor (Swansea Roche, John
Caldwell, James Jones, Leif (Appleby) Roe, Sir Thomas
Cameron, Robert Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Rose, Charles Day
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Jordan, Jeremiah Runciman, Walter
Campbell Bannerman, Sir H. Kearley, Hudson E. Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Causton Richard Knight Kilbride, Denis Schwann, Charles E.
Cawley, Frederick Kitson, Sir James Seely, Maj JEB (Isle of Wight)
Channing, Francis Allston Shackleton, David James
Cheetham, John Frederick Labouchere, Henry Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Churchill, Winston Spencer Lambert, George Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Clancy, John Joseph Lamont, Norman Sheehy, David
Condon, Thomas Joseph Langley, Batty Shipman, Dr. John G.
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.) Sinclair, john (Forfarshire)
Cremer, William Randal Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Slack, John Bamford
Crombie, John William Layland-Barratt, Francis Smith, Samuel Flint
Cooks, William Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) Soames Arthur Wellesley
Levy Maurice Soares, Ernest J.
Dalziel, James Henry Lewis, John Herbert Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R. (Northants
Davies M. Vaughan' (Cardigan) Lloyd, George David Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Delany, William Lough, Thomas Stevenson, Francis S.
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Lundon, W. Strachey, Sir Edward
Dobbie, Joseph Lyell, Charles Henry Sullivan, Donal
Donelan, Captain A.
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Duffy, William J. MacNeil, John Gordon Swift Tennant, Harold John
Duncan, J. Hastings MacVeagh, Jeremiah Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.
Dunn, Sir William McCrae, George Thomson, F.W. (York, W.R.)
Edwards, Frank M'Kean, John Tomkinson, James
M'Kenna, Reginald Toulmin, George
Ellice, Capt. E.C(S Andrw'sBghs Markham, Arthur Basil Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) Mitchel, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.) Ure, Alexander
Emmott, Alfred Mooney, John J. Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Wallace, Robert
Evans,SirFrancisH(Maidstone) Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Eve, Harry Trelawney Moss, Samuel Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Fenwick, Charles Moulton, John Fletcher Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Ferguson, R.C. Munro (Leith) Murphy, John Wason, John Catheart(Orkney)
Ffrench, peter Nannetti, Joseph P. Weir, James Galloway
Findlay, Alexander(LanarkNE Newnes, Sir George White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Flavin, Michael Joseph Norman, Henry White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Flynn, James Christopher Norton, Capt. Cecil William Whiteley, George (York, W. R.
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Nussey, Thomas Willans Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Freeman-Thomas, Captain, F. O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Whittaker, Thomas palmer
Fuller, J. M. F. O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Furness, sir Christopher O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset)
Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary N.) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Grant, Corrie O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Griffith, Ellis J. O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Wood, James
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton O'Dowd, John Young, Samuel
Haldane, Rt. Hon, Richard B. O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Yoxall, James Henry
Hammond, John O'Malley, William TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Harmsworth, R. Leicester O'Mara, James Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Harrington, Timothy O'Shaughenssy, P. J. Mr. William M'Arthur.
Harwood, George Partington, Oswald
Hayden, John Patrick Paulton, James Mellor

Question put, "That the Chairman do report these Resolutions to the House."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 256; Noes, 205. (Division List No. 72.)

Ratcliff, R. F. Skewes-Cox, Thomas Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.
Reid, James (Greenock) Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) Warde, Colonel C. E
Remnant, James Farquharson Smith, H.C (North'mb Tyneside Welby, Lt.-Col A. C. E. (Taunton)
Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine Smith, Rt. Hn J Parker (Lanarks.) Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)
Renwick, George Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand) Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd
Ridley, S. Forde Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich) Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyno
Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Robinson Brooke Stock, James Henry Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Stroyan, John Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Round, Rt. Hon. James Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) Wilson-Todd, Sir W H. (Yorks.)
Royds, Clement Molyneux Thornton, Percy M. Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Tritton, Charles Ernest Wortley, Rt. Hn. C., B. Stuart
Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford Tuff, Charles Wylie, Alexander
Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse) Tuke, Sir John Batty
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Turnour, Viscount TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
Seton-Karr, Sir Henry Vincent, Col Sir C. E. H (Sheffield) Alexander Acland-Hood
Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) and Viscount Valentia.
Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Walker, Col. William Hall
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.) Ellis, John Edward (Notts) Lambert, George
Ainsworth, John Stirling Emmott, Alfred Lamont, Norman
Allen, Charles P. Esmonde, Sir Thomas Langley, Batty
Ambrose, Robert Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone) Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.)
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Eve, Harry Trelawney Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)
Atherley-Jones L. Fenwick, Charles Layland-Barratt, Francis
Barlow, John Emmott Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)
Barran, Rowland Hirst Ffrench, Peter Levy, Maurice
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.) Lewis, John Herbert
Bell, Richard Flavin, Michael Joseph Lloyd-George, David
Boland, John Flynn, James Christopher Lough, Thomas
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Lundon, W.
Brigg, John Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Lyell, Charles Henry
Broadhurst, Henry Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Fuller, J. M. F. MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Furness, Sir Christopher MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Goddard, Daniel Ford M'Crae, George
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Grant, Corrie M'Kean, John
Burke, E. Haviland Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwic M'Kenna, Reginald
Burns, John Griffith, Ellis J. Markham, Arthur Basil
Buxton, Sydney Charles Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Mitchell, Ed. (Fermanagh, N.)
Caldwell, James Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Mooney, John J.
Cameron, Robert Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Hammond, John Moss, Samuel
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Harrington, Timothy Moulton, John Fletcher
Causton, Richard Knight Harwood, George Murphy, John
Cawley, Frederick Hayden, John Patrick Nannetti, Joseph P.
Channing, Francis Allston Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D. Newnes, Sir George
Cheetham, John Frederick Helme, Norval Watson Norman Henry
Churchill, Winston Spencer Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H. Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Clancy, John Joseph Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Nussey, Thomas Willans
Condon, Thomas Joseph Higham, John Sharpe O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)
Cremer, William Randal Holland, Sir William Henry O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Crombie, John William Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Crooks, William Horniman, Frederick John O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)
Dalziel, James Henry Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk. O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Delany, William Jacoby, James Alfred O'Dowd, John
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Johnson, John O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Dobbie, Joseph Joicey, Sir James O'kelly, James (Roscommon, N)
Donelan, Captain A. Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea O'Malley, William
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Jones, Leif (Appleby) O'Mara, James
Duffy, William J. Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Duncan, J. Hastings Jordan, Jeremiah Partington, Oswald
Dunn, Sir William Kearley Hudson E. Paulton, James Mellor
Edwards, Frank Kilbride, Denis Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Elice, Capt E C (S. Andrw's Bghs) Kitson, Sir James Perks, Robert William
Power, Patrick Joseph Shipman, Dr. John G. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Price, Robert John Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Priestley, Arthur Slack, John Bamford Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Rea, Russell Smith, Samuel (Flint) Weir, James Galloway
Reckitt, Harold James Soames, Arthur Wellesley White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Reddy, M. Soares, Ernest J. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R (Northants) Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
Reid, Sir R Threshie (Dumfries) Stanhope, Hon. Philip James Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th Stevenson, Francis S. Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Rickett, J. Compton Strachey, Sir Edward Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Sullivan, Donal Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset)
Robson, William Snowdon Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Roche, John Tennant, Harold John Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Roe, Sir Thomas Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) Wood, James
Rose, Charles Day Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R) Woodhouae, Sir J T (Huddersf'd)
Runciman, Walter Tomkinson, James Young, Samuel
Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland) Toulmin, George Yoxall, James Henry
Schwann, Charles E. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight Ure, Alexander TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Shackleton, David James Waldron, Laurence Ambrose Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) Wallace, Robert Mr. William M'Arthur.
Sheehy, David Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Resolutions to be reported upon Thursday; Committee to sit again To-morrow.