Commons Sitting of 29 July 1907

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL [LORDS] (STANDING ORDER APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
  Sunderland Corporation Bill. Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.
  Manchester Corporation Tramways Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Metropolitan Water Board (Various Powers) Bill (King's Consent signified). Bill read the third time, and passed.
  North British Railway Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified). Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Tees Conservancy Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified). Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Merthyr Tydfil Stipendiary Justice Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  Selsey Water Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Aberdeen Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
  Paisley Corporation Order Confirmation Bill, "To confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1829, relating to Paisley Corporation," presented by Mr. Sinclair, and ordered, under Section 7 of the Act, to be considered upon Wednesday next.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Imported Watch-cases Bill, without Amendment.
  South Wales Mineral Railway Bill; Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill; Annfield Plain and District Gas Bill, with Amendments.

PETITION.
  WEEKLY REST-DAY BILL.
  Petition from London and other places, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Com missioners for the period from 1st April 1906, to 31st March, 1907 [by Command] to lie upon the Table.
  QUEEN'S COLLEGE (GALWAY).
  Copy presented, of Report of the President of Queen's College (Galway) for the Session 1906–7 [by Command]; to lit upon the Table.
  GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS (IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 10th April; MR. Boland]; to lie upon the Table.
  SANITARY OFFICERS IN RURAL DISTRICTS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 18th April; Sir John Dickson-Poynder]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 273.]
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Regulations for Secondary Schools, Wales (in force from 1st August, 1907) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Fifty-first Detailed Annual Report of the Registrar General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in Scotland (Abstracts of 1905) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1387.
  Copy presented, of Return for the year ended 31st March, 1907, of the Army and Navy Officers permitted, under Rule 2 of the Regulations drawn up under Section 6 of the Act, to hold civil employment for profit under Public Departments [by Act]; to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 274.]
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copies presented, of Colonial Report No. 530 (Northern Territories of the Gold Coast, Annual Report for 1906); No. 531 (Sierra Leone, Annual Report for 1906) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3876 and 3877 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Chamber of London. Annual Accounts of the Chamberlain of London for the year 1906 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 275.]
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Provincial Telephone Charges.
    MR. MALLET: To ask the Postmaster-General whether it is now in contemplation to revise the provincial tariff of telephone charges; and whether this revision has involved, and is likely to involve in future, a considerable increase in many cases in the cost of telephone messages in this country.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The rates of subscription to provincial exchanges of the Post Office have been recently revised on the basis of a measured, rate under which the payment made by each subscriber corresponds with the quantity and quality of the telephone exchange service that he receives. The minimum cost of an exchange line has been increased from £4 10s. to £5 a year. but 500 local calls are now allowed for £5 instead of 480 as under the former rate. The rate charged for local calls in excess of 1,000 per annum has been reduced from Id. to ¾d., and for calls above 2,000 to½d. A cheaper two-party-line service is also given. The unlimited service rate is not now offered to subscribers.

    Buncrana Telephonic Facilities.
    MR. BARRIE: To ask the Postmaster-General what is the cause of the delay in the giving of telephonic facilities to Buncrana and Fahan; and when does the Postmaster-General now expect the service to be available.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The delay in providing the telephone line between Londonderry and Buncrana is due to wayleave difficulties, which have

    441
    prevented the erection of the line on the railway as proposed. It has now been found necessary to erect a new pole line on the public road; permission for its erection has been sought from the county council, and, after it has been received, it is feared that four months must elapse before the work can be completed.

    Second Ballots.
    DR. COOPER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has in the possession of his Department any information of the regulations and procedure governing the second ballot at elections in different European countries; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of issuing it.
    (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Local Government Board have no special information in their possession on this subject. I may, however, draw my hon. friend's attention to some Reports obtained by the Foreign Office in relation to the matter, which will be found in the three Parliamentary Papers numbered Cd. 2987 of 1881, Cd. 3159 of 1882, and Cd. 6953 of 1893.

    Duty on Manufactured Silver.
    MR PIKE PEASE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what was the average amount of revenue acquired from the duty imposed on manufactured silver during the past live financial years.
    (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) There has not, within the period stated, been any duty either of Customs or Excise upon manufactured silver.

    Boy Clerks in the Civil Service.
    MR. LAIDLAW: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Civil Service Commissioners give a preference by moans of service marks to boy clerks who have served in other departments in what are advertised as open competitions for assistantships of Excise and Customs; whether he is aware that this is a preference to London boys, who constitute the great majority of boy clerks, and a corresponding handicap to the provinces and whether he will see that in future
    442
    competitions absolute equality is given to boys in all parts of the United Kingdom.
    (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. I think there are good reasons for the preference given to boy clerks by the system referred to, and these reasons are not invalidated by the fact that service in the capacity of boy clerk is naturally more attractive to those who reside in or near London than the boys from the provinces.

    Trade Marks on Boxes.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that, by Clauses 15 and 16 of Customs General Order, 26th February, 1900, empty boxes, printed with English wording and manufactured abroad, are imported as coverings, and are not obliged to boar upon them any indication as to their place of origin; and whether, inasmuch as these boxes are complete in themselves, he will cause instructions to be issued so that such boxes shall be treated as manufactured articles to which The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, is applicable.
    (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I have nothing to add at present to my Answer of the 15th instant on this subject. †

    Sugar and Tea Duties
    MR. GWYNN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can estimate the sums raised from Ireland by the existing taxes on sugar and tea, respectively; and if he can say what Ireland's contribution would amount to were the same amount of revenue raised by direct instead of by indirect taxation.
    (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I must refer the hon. Member to the Return of Revenue and Expenditure for 1906–7 (England, Scotland, and Ireland), No. 245, of 1907, which shows that the total revenue derived from the Tea and Sugar Duties was £11,839,000, to which Ireland contributed £1,154,000, or 9·7 per cent. If the same total amount wore raised by direct taxation, the amount of Ireland's contribution would, of course, depend on the nature of the direct taxes imposed. The percentage of Ireland's present
    †See(4)Debates,clxxviii, 336–7.

    443
    contribution to the income-tax is 3·4 per cent., and to the death duties 3·6 per cent.

    Guaranteed Loans for the Colonies.
    MR. FELL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is over thirty years since the Government had guaranteed a loan for any self-governing Colony; and what are the extraordinary circumstances which have induced it to break this long-standing practice in favour of the Transvaal Colony.
    (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The last occasion was in 1873. The reasons for the present proposal will be fully explained when Parliament is asked to sanction the giving of the guarantee.
    MR. FELL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state how much is outstanding at the present time of the loans guaranteed by the British Government to Colonies with responsible Government.
    (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The total net amount outstanding in respect of such loans is £2,268,980 7s. 7d. Full particulars were stated in a reply I gave to an unstarred Question by the hon. Member for Tiverton on the 17th instant †

    Salt Tax Prosecution in Bombay.
    MR. HAROLD COX: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has yet received any information with regard to the case reported some weeks ago of a Bombay mill operative who was fined ten rupees for scraping up half an ounce of salt from the sea shore; whether it is necessary for the protection of the revenue from salt tax that such prosecutions should take place; and, if so, whether he will press upon the Government of India the importance of reducing public expenditure in order that this tax may be altogether abolished.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I have not yet received the information which I undertook to obtain from the Government of Bombay, and I am not at present in a position to express an opinion as to the necessity for such
    †See (4)Debates, clxxviii., 668.
    444
    prosecutions. The Government of India are acquainted with my views on the subject of restricting public expenditure in the interest of the Indian taxpayer, and on the subject of the salt duty; and these questions will continue to receive my closest attention.

    Official Visits to India.
    MR. LAIDLAW: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he can see his way to pay a visit to India during the recess; and, should this be impossible or inconvenient, will he arrange for the Under-Secretary to do so.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) My hon. friend's Questions are not at all unnatural, and I am very sorry that my answer to them must in both cases be in the negative.

    Herbert Estate, County Kerry.
    MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that about twenty of the tenants of the late Herbert estate, in the county of Kerry, which was sold under the Land Purchase Acts, have had their holdings purchased over their heads by Lord Ardilaun; and whether he can take any steps to give these tenants the benefits of land purchase which Lord Ardilaun's action had deprived them of.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am not in a position to add anything to the reply which my predecessor gave to the hon. Member's Question on this subject on 2nd April 1906. ‡

    Failure of Kinvara (Galway) Crops.
    MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the apprehended failure of the potato and other crops in the Kinvara district, Galway. this year owing to the abnormally wet year; and whether it is the intention of the Government to pass the Bill introduced some time ago to enable the county council, in conjunction with the Congested Districts Board and the Agricultural Board, to carry out the projected scheme of improvement to Kinvara harbour.
    ‡ See(4)Debates,clv., 130.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Reports which the Local Government Board have received from the Kinvara district show that the potato crop is well up to the average, and that if good weather should continue for the next fortnight the harvest will be satisfactory. The Prime Minister has already announced that it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Navigation Works (Ireland) Bill.

    Education Estimates.
    MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that, whereas the Education Estimates for England and Wales increased from £9,557,129 in 1900–1 to £13,593,646 in 1907–8, and the Education Estimates for Scotland increased from £1,333,221 to £2,022,554 in the same period, the Education Estimates for Ireland advanced only from £1,387,503 to £1,408,360; whether the percentage of increase in the seven years was 43 in the case of England, 51 in the case of Scotland, and only 1·5 in the case of Ireland; and whether he will endeavour to secure for Ireland increased financial assistance for primary education in proportion to the needs of Irish children.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I can only repeat the Answer which I have already given to similar Questions, namely, that a comparison between the Votes mentioned in the Question cannot justly be instituted. The Votes for England and Scotland include provision for secondary and technical education, while the Vote for Ireland refers to primary education alone, and indeed does not include the whole of the provision voted for that service. Secondary and technical education are otherwise provided for in Ireland. But, apart from comparisons, I may say that I will do everything in my power to obtain fuller recognition of the special claims of Ireland in respect of primary education. The hon. Member is probably aware that last week my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer received an important deputation on the subject, and promised sympathetic consideration of the entire question.

    Drishane Land Dispute.
    MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received a statement of claim from an evicted tenant named John R. O'Sullivan in respect of lands on the estate of Mrs. Jane J. Singleton, situate at Cloughoulabeg E.D., Drishane, union of Millstreet, and at present in occupation of a planter named Richard T. Pomeroy; has this claim been investigated and reported on by an estates inspector; and, if so, will he say whether John R. O'Sullivan has been noted as a person to whom the provisions of the Evicted Tenants Bill may apply, and who will be restored to his older holding or one of equivalent value.
    To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application from Mr. John R. O'Sullivan asking to be reinstated in his former holding on the lands of Cloughonlabeg E.D., Drishane, union of Millstreet, and estate of Mrs. Singleton; are these evicted lands at present in the hands of the middleman, Daniel Sullivan, and, if so, will he state whether the latter has been approached with a view to allowing the evicted tenant back to his old farm; what has been the result of the inquiries and investigations carried out at the instance of the Estates Commissioners in regard to this case; and when may the evicted tenant hope to be restored to the land again.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received applications from John R. O'Sullivan for reinstatement in holdings now occupied by Richard Pomeroy and Daniel Sullivan. The Commissioners have fully investigated both cases, and have decided that they can take no action in either.

    Irish Land Titles.
    MR. MEAGHER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that every purchaser under The Land Purchase Act, 1903, has by statutory rights his title registered free of charge; whether the local registration of titles office issues the land certificate of the purchase to the Land Commission only after payment to

    447
    him of a fee of 10s.; why is such a fee charged; and whether he will direct that it will be no longer levied.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Since 1891 the titles of all purchasing tenants have been registered under statute free of charge. If, however, the purchaser demands a certificate of title he is charged a fee of 10s. in accordance with the schedule of fees prescribed under statute, but the procurement of such a certificate is entirely optional. Under the Act of 1903 purchasers from the Land Commission or the Congested Districts Board are relieved from the payment of a fee for a certificate of title. I have no power to direct any alteration in the scale of fees.

    Irish Teachers' Salaries.
    MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ire land whether he can state if the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland now see any difficulty about complying with the repeated requests made to them as to the payment of teachers' salaries every month.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I understand that the only difficulty in the way of paying the teachers' salaries monthly is that a very large increase of staff would be necessary, and this would involve a considerable increase in the Vote. The total number of teachers, pupil teachers, and monitors is about 17,000. The present is not an opportune time for re-opening the question, but it will not be lost sight of in connection with the larger question of primary education generally.

    War Department Marquee Contracts.
    MR. CROOKS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether investigation is ever made into the conditions and rates of pay agreed to by the contractors for marquees and tents to satisfy his Department that there is no infringement of these conditions.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Immediate inquiry is invariably instituted on receipt of complaint of infringement of the clauses in contracts relating to wages or conditions of labour. Such an inquiry was made in the early part of this year in regard to the execution of certain
    448
    contracts for tents, and showed that, so far as could be ascertained, the terms of the contract relating to wages were duly observed.

    Cost of Army Messing.
    COLONEL LONG: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he could state what is the average cost per head borne by officers in the Army for their daily messing, and the expenses of servants and upkeep of the mess; whether any and, if so, what is the average value of rations provided to officers in the Army at the public cost; and whether the cost or any part of the cost of cooks and waiters required to keep up the officers' messing is provided at the public cost.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) For infantry subalterns at Home the average cost per head for daily messing may be taken at 4s. Towards the ordinary expenses of the mess each officer pays a subscription not exceeding eight days pay, and towards incidental expenses not covered by this subscription he pays a sum not exceeding 10s. a month. No rations are granted to officers at Home. At stations abroad, where expenses are high, officers receive a Colonial allowance, under paragraph 290 Allowance Regulations, in aid of the extra cost of living. A free ration or an allowance in lieu is given to every officer at foreign stations. Mess allowances are granted annually in aid of the maintenance of regimental messes at rates set forth in the Allowance Regulations, paragraphs 529 to 531; in the case of an infantry subaltern these come to about £6 a head. In the case of the mounted branches the expenses are a little greater than in the infantry.

    Cost of Navy Messing.
    COLONEL LONG: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he could state what is the average cost per head borne by officers in the Navy for their daily messing, and the expenses of servants and upkeep of the mess; whether any and, if so, what is the average value of rations provided to officers in the Navy at the public cost; and whether the cost or any part of the cost of cooks and waiters required to keep up the officers messing is provided at the public cost.
    (Answered by Mr. Edmund, Robertson.) The average cost per head to be borne by officers in the Navy for their daily messing and the expenses of servants and upkeep of the moss is proscribed by the King's Regulations, as follows:—In the Ward Room the monthly mess subscription is not to exceed £3. In the Gun Room the monthly mess subscription is not to exceed 30s.; but in addition to this sum, 5s. may be charged for replacing mess utensils and other necessary expenses; and the following sums may also be allowed for extras should a member choose to indulge in them, viz.:—For commissioned officers, £1 a month. For other members, 10s. a month. Each Ward Room officer entitled to the services of a Marine servant is required to pay the sum of 10s. a month to the man employed; if the services of the man are shared with another officer, each officer is required to pay the sum of 6s. a month to the man. The average value of rations provided for officers in the Navy at the public cost is l0 d. per diem. The whole cost as naval ratings of cooks and waiters required to keep up the officers' messing is provided at the public cost.

    Examination for Foreign Office Appointments.
    MR. HORNIMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether candidates for appointments in the Foreign Office are no longer required nor permitted to be examined in geography as one of the examination subjects; and, if so, what, if any, reason there is for this change.
    (Answered, by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) It was decided in 1905, after careful consideration, to assimilate the examination for the Foreign Office and the Diplomatic Service with the examination for the Home and Indian Civil Services, Class 1. This examination is framed in such a manner as to conform with university requirements and to attract candidates from the large universities. It is desirable to adhere as closely as possible to the syllabus which has been adopted for Class 1. I understand that it is contemplated to introduce geography at no distant date into the syllabus for Class I., and I shall welcome such a solution.

    Government Contracts and Fair Wages.
    MR. TREVELYAN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the practice of other Government Departments, in cases of dispute in reference to the current rate and condition of employment, and whether a particular contractor is or is not carrying out the terms of the fair wages clause, to refer to the Labour Department of the Board of Trade for inquiry and report.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Labour Department of the Board of Trade is frequently consulted by other Departments as regards current rate of wages or conditions in particular trades or localities, but a question whether a particular contractor is or is not carrying out the terms of the fair wages clause is and must always remain a matter for the decision of the Department directly concerned with the contract.

    Belfast Harbour Commissioners.
    MR. SLOAN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will have printed and circulated with the Votes a copy of the letter which he received recently from the Belfast Harbour Commissioners to certain questions regarding that body, together with the effect of any supplementary information which he may have received from the Commissioners.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The letter which I received from the Belfast Harbour Commissioners was in the following terms:—
    Belfast Harbour Commissioners.
    Harbour Office, Belfast,
    6th July, 1907.
    Sir,
    I am instructed by the Belfast Harbour Commissioners to acknowledge receipt of your communication of the 4th instant (H. 8441) transmitting a series of Questions proposed to be asked in the House of Commons by Mr. Devlin, M.P., on the subject of the affairs of this trust.
    I am to point out by way of preface that the statements contained in the Questions are so varied and cover such a large field of statistical and other matters that it is obviously impossible, in the

    451
    limited time permitted for reply, that a full and satisfactory answer can be made to the many points on which information is desired.
    I am, however, directed by the Commissioners to deal with the subject matter of the Questions as fully as the circumstances will admit, and to say that the Commissioners observed in the press some vague and general statements reflecting on the Board made by Mr. Carlisle at a luncheon on the 27th ultimo, of which they took no notice.
    The Commissioners are not aware whether Messrs. Harland and Wolff refused to tender for ships in consequence of a refusal on the part of the Commissioners to give them ground, but if they did so refuse to tender the fault does not lie with the Commissioners, as they never declined to let ground to this firm. As a matter of fact the Commissioners have about 140 acres of ground which they are desirous to let for shipbuilding purposes.
    A special plot of land, containing about forty acres suitable for shipbuilding purposes on the east side of Musgrave Channel, was put up for letting by public auction on the 6th October, 1903, in accordance with the provisions of the Harbour Acts. See following advertisement cutting:—

    Belfast Harbour.
    The Belfast Harbour Commissioners are prepared, in pursuance of their statutory powers, to let on lease for thirty-one years a plot of ground on the County Down side of the harbour, containing an area of forty acres or thereabouts.
    The ground is admirably suited for shipbuilding, engineering, and other kindred purposes, being situate on the east side of the Musgrave Channel and having water frontage suitable for the launching of vessels.
    The premises will be offered for letting by public competition by Messrs. Clarke and Son, at the Harbour Office, on Tuesday, the 6th October, 1903, at one o'clock.
    For full particulars and conditions of letting, apply to the Commissioners' solicitor, Edward Bates, 11 Lombard Street, Belfast; or to W. A. Currie,
    452
    Secretary to the Commissioners, Harbour Office, Belfast. 18th August 1903.
    MR. Carlisle and others were present, but no offer was made.
    The statement that the policy pursued by the trust for the past five years has been a source of trouble is without foundation.
    It is also untrue that the trust has allowed not only the docks but the entrances to the docks to silt up.
    As for the statement that in some cases Messrs. Harland and Wolff "had the greatest difficulty in getting the Commissioners to remove the silt prior to the launching of large ships," the Commissioners have to state that Messrs. Harland and Wolff's lease provides that the Commissioners shall give a depth of water opposite the launching ways of not less than ten feet at low water of ordinary tides. Notwithstanding this, the Commissioners have largely exceeded the said depth. Any special dredging required for gigantic ships the Commissioners have always undertaken, at the shipbuilders' expense in the first instance, the silt afterwards being removed gratuitously by the Commissioners when required for launches. With regard to the statement made by the chairman of this trust as to a proposed expenditure by Messrs. Harland and Wolff of £50,000 on additional plant, Messrs. Harland and Wolff's solicitor, in October, 1906, made certain proposals to the Commissioners as to a large floating crane, and stated that they, Harland and Wolff, had been going into the matter for some months previously, and that, although they would prefer the-Commissioners should provide the crane, they were then prepared to give out a contract for the supply of the same, and he asked the Commissioners for certain facilities in connection therewith. This is the matter to which the chairman referred in his statement of the 18th ultimo, the plans having been shown to him the previous day by Messrs. Harland and Wolff's solicitor. The facilities referred to in connection with this crane would cost the Commissioners a large sum of money, and the whole matter is still under consideration. Belfast Harbour is amply equipped with cranes sufficient for all ordinary shipbuilding work, including a crane erected at very considerable expense capable of dealing with lifts up to 100

    453
    tons. The Commissioners believe that at other shipbuilding centres in the Kingdom facilities of this character are provided by the shipbuilders themselves. There is no foundation for the statement that Messrs. Harland and Woolff offered to take £30,000 worth of harbour stock, and that the Commissioners refused to consider the offer. The Commissioners are engaged in constructing a graving dock for shipbuilding purposes at a cost of some £320,000. To induce them to undertake this huge expenditure Lord Pirrie, who was then a member of the Board, promised to take up £200,000 of Belfast harbour stock. This promise is still unredeemed. The following are the names of the present members of the Trust and the number of votes recorded for each on their last contested election:—

    Number of votes at last contested election.

    Chairman, MR. Robert Thompson, Drum House, Belfast

    3,502

    MR. John Andrews, Greenville, Bloomfield -

    3,237

    MR. George S. Clark, M.P., Dunlambert, Fortwilliam Park, Belfast

    —

    Sir Thomas J. Dixon, Bart., Graymount, Belfast

    —

    MR. R. E. Herdman, Rosavo, Cultra

    3,272

    MR. Frederick L. Heyn, Darina, Strandtown

    —

    MR. William J. Jackson, Ingledene, Cultra

    —

    Sir Otto Jane, Kinedar, Strand-town

    2,633

    MR. David C. Kemp, Cultra

    3,409

    MR. Samuel Lawther, Mount Vernon, Belfast

    3,300

    MR. John Lepper, Barnageeha, Fortwilliam Park, Belfast

    3,303

    MR. James M'Connell, Stranmillis House, Belfast

    3,417

    MR. Richard Paterson, Kilmore, Holywood -

    3,468

    MR. Hugh M. Pollock, 11, College Gardens, Belfast

    —

    MR. William R. Rea, Abbey-lands, Whiteabbey -

    3,434

    MR. John Rogers, 22, Derryvolgie Avenue, Belfast -

    2,869

    The Right Hon. The Earl of Shaftesbury, Belfast Castle, Belfast

    —

    Number of votes at last contested election.

    MR. Thomas F. Shillington, Dromart, Antrim Road, Belfast

    —

    MR. John Sinclair, 8, College Gardens, Belfast -

    3,594

    MR. William Williames, Cornwall Villa, Holywood -

    3,448

    MR. James Wilson, Old Forge, Dunmurry

    3,348

    The Lord Mayor of Belfast,ex officio.

    Of the above Commissioners three have been co-opted, viz., MR. George S. Clark, M.P., shipbuilder; Sir Thomas J. Dixon, Baronet, shipowner; The Right Hon. The Earl of Shaftesbury, K.C.V.O., Lord Mayor of Belfast. Some of the other members were originally co-opted and the co-options have been confirmed at subsequent elections. The officers of the trust (clerical and engineering) number fifty-eight, and their salaries amount to £1,147 12s. 6d . per month. The amount paid in weekly wages, based on four weeks in June last, is £803 to 669 persons. It is incorrect to state that the Belfast Harbour Commissioners invariably co-opt gentlemen on their Board who have no enterprise in shipping or port work. Two of the last three co-options were:—MR. George S. Clark, M.P., a director of the well-known Belfast shipbuilding firm of Workman, Clark, and Co., Limited, and a large shipowner; and Sir Thomas J. Dixon, Bart., senior partner of the well-known firm of Thomas Dixon and Sons, Belfast, who own and manage a shipping tonnage of 29,000 registered tons. The electors have in every instance in the past history of the trust, with one exception, endorsed the action of the Commissioners in their co-options, and have always aimed at having a representation of the various industries on the Board. More than half of the present members are interested in shipping. All co-options of Commissioners must take place within one month from the date of the vacancy which they are elected to fill. The Commissioners cannot control the dates of such vacancies either by death or otherwise. There is no foundation whatever for the statement that any friction has been going on or has ever gone on between the harbour trust and its employees. The chief and

    455
    staple industry of Belfast is the linen industry, and the Commissioners are not aware that its destruction has been threatened. As for the shipbuilding industry, it is well known that it is in a most flourishing condition.
    I am, etc.,
    (Sd.) W. A. Currie, Secretary.
    The Assistant Secretary,
    Harbour Department, Board of Trade,
    7, Whitehall Gardens, London, S.W.
    From subsequent communications it appears that the date of the last election, which was not contested, was the 28th March last, and that of the last contested election was 29th March, 1906. At the latter the number of voters was 8,259, and the numbers of voting papers to which they were entitled was 14,175. Each voting paper entitles the holder to vote for not more than seven candidates, and the total number of votes recorded in 1906 was 24,059.

    Board of Works—Contracts Clause.
    MR. TREVELYAN: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether any alterations have been made in the conditions inserted in notices and contracts by the Board of Works since the Return given in Parliamentary Paper, No. 277, of Session 1896, page 123, Appendix No. 1; and, if so, what the alterations are.
    (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) With a view to ensuring still further that the workmen employed by the contractors of this Department shall receive the accepted wages in their respective trades, the following clause has been drawn up and included, in all the building and engineering contracts of the Office of Works:— The wages paid by the contractor to workmen employed by him on the execution of works shall be those generally accepted in each trade for competent workmen in the district where they are employed, and the contractor's wages books and time sheets for; all workmen, so far as they relate to this contract, shall be open to the inspection of the Commissioners of Works, or their representatives, at such times as they may think fit. With regard to manufactured goods, such as furniture, the following clauses, designed with the same purpose, are included, as far as possible,
    456
    in the Board's contracts: Wages.—The wages paid in the execution of this contract shall be those generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen in the district where the work is carried out. Work in Factory. —The contractors shall undertake that all articles included in this contract shall be made in their own factory or workshop at— Inspection of Work, Wages Books, etc.— The contractors' factories and workshops and the goods in process of manufacture. and also the contractors' wages books and time sheets shall be open to inspection at all reasonable times by the controller of supplies or his representative. In addition the Board have provided in their contracts for specific building works, that—The builder shall pay the workmen employed on the work at the building or on the site and not elsewhere. Though not mentioned in the Return of 1896, this is a provision of more than twenty years standing.

    Civil Service Transfers.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will furnish a Return showing the names of all persons admitted into the Civil Service, or transferred from one department of that service to another, under Clause 7 of the Order in Council of 1870, specifying from what position and to what position they were transferred, and the date of the transfer: the Return to cover the past twenty-five years.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will grant a Return as regards promotions from the Second Division to superior appointments, specifying the name of the official, the date at which, and the means by which, he entered the service: the name of the appointment to which he was promoted, and the date of the promotion under Clause 18 of the Order in Council dated 12th February, 1876, or the clauses of succeeding Orders which have replaced that clause; the Return to cover the past twenty-five years.
    (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I understand that each of these Returns would require a large amount of research, and I do not consider that any purpose they could serve would justify the labour involved in preparing them.

    Copper Coinage.
    MR. CHARLES ALLEN: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the scarcity of copper coins in country districts; and, if so, whether he will take steps to remedy the scarcity.
    (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I have no evidence that there exists a scarcity of bronze coins in any district. The demands for bronze have been very moderate in amount for the last three months, and the large issues of 1906 appear to have amply satisfied the requirements of the public.

    China and Indian Opium.
    MR. H.J. WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the purport of the communications made to the Chinese Government with regard to the proposed restriction of the importation of Indian opium into China; and if he will say what measures have been taken in India to carry out the policy of restriction.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) After consulting the Government of India, His Majesty's Government have inform d the Chinese Government that (1) they accept in principle the proposal that the import of Indian opium into China shall be diminished by one-tenth annually,pari passu, with an equal decrease in oho production of the native drug, up to the year 1910, and they will continue to reduce at the same rate the export in 1911 and subsequent years, on proof that China has carried out its share of the arrangement; (2) they have no objection to a Chinese official being stationed at Calcutta, provided that he has no powers of interference; (3) they are prepared to assent to such enhancement of the Customs and likin duty on foreign opium as will make its taxation in China equivalent to the taxation actually levied on native opium, differences in relative value and quality being taken into consideration. Steps have been taken to reduce the area under poppy in Bengal, which in the five years preceding 1906–7 averaged 615,000 acres, and in 1907–8 is not to exceed 562,000 acres. In 1907 the number of chests of
    458
    Bengal opium fixed for sale was originally 4,400 a month. This has now been reduced to 4,000 a mouth, while for 1908 it has been fixed at 3,900 a month. Further reductions will be made in succeeding years if the proposed arrangement with the Chinese Government becomes operative.

    Irish Board of Works Staff.
    MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that certain technical positions in the Irish Board of Works are confined to persons nominated by one political party in Ireland, ho will give instructions that in future nominations for these appointments should be abolished, and that they should be filled by examinations open to all, irrespective of religion or politics.
    (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) Open competition is not, in my opinion, a suitable method for filling the technical appointments referred to in the hon. Member's Question. It has boon tried, and the result was found to be unsatisfactory. But there is no foundation for the suggestion that the nominations are influenced by considerations of either religion or politics.

    Inspectors of Irish National Schools.
    MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether appointments to the position of inspector of Irish national schools are confined to the nominated candidates of the Irish National Education Commissioners; and, if so, seeing that it is no part of the duties of these inspectors to examine children in religion, will he give instructions that all future vacancies in the inspectorate should be open to all candidates, irrespective of religion or politics.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The appointment of inspectors of national schools in Ireland rests with the Commissioners of National Education. Under a longstanding arrangement one half of the inspectors are Roman Catholics and the other half belong to other denominations. The Commissioners inform me that they do not think it desirable to alter this arrangement.

    Royal Irish. Constabulary Inspectors.
    MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a number of vacancies in the inspectorate of the Royal Irish Constabulary are filled by limited competition amongst nominated and inexperienced candidates; and, if so, seeing that experience in police duties is essential to the discretionary and diplomatic discharge of such duties, and that the police inspectorate in Great Britain is entirely composed of experienced and capable men risen from the ranks, will he give instructions that, in future, the same system should be applied in Ireland as obtains in Great Britain.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I refer to the Answer given by my predecessor to the hon. Member's similar Question on 24th July, 1906. † That Answer still holds good.

    Whitechurch Evicted Tenant.
    MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received a claim for reinstatement from an evicted tenant named John Ambrose, of New Grove, Whitechurch, county Cork; has this application been yet investigated, and, if so, will he state whether it is proposed to reinstate Ambrose in his old holding under the terms of the Evicted Tenants Bill now before Parliament, or in the alternative to provide him with a farm of equivalent value.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received from John Ambrose an application for reinstatement, and after full inquiries have decided that they can take no action in the case.

    Belturbet Evicted Tenant.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from Henry M'Cabe, Langham, Belturbet, the son of Peter M'Cabe, deceased, who was evicted from his farm in Lislea, held under Alexander Castle Montgomery, in or about 1885; who is in possession of
    † See(4)Debates,clxi., 1023–4
    460
    this farm now; what is the tenure; and will this evicted tenant's son's claim be considered favourably; and will he state the rent of this farm at the date of eviction and the present rent.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received the application in question and have had the case fully inquired into. The holding in which reinstatement is sought is in the occupation of Alexander Turner, who holds it at a judicial rent. The rent at the time of eviction was £16 3s. l0d. per annum, and the present judicial rent is £17. The Commissioners have placed M'Cabe's name on the list of persons suitable to receive an allotment of land, if such should become available.

    QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

      Coast and River Protection.
      SIR GILBERT PARKER (Gravesend): I bog to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if. it is now the policy of the Board of Admiralty to relegate entirely to the Navy the duty of coast and river protection.
      THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Dundee): The Answer is in the negative.

      The Coastguard.
      MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state when the Report of the Inter-departmental Committee on His Majesty's Coastguard will be laid upon the Table.
      MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I have as yet nothing to add to my Answer to an identical Question from my hon. and gallant friend on 2nd July. †
      MR. CATHCART WASON: What arrangement will be made for carrying on the important life-saving services now carried on by the coastguard at places whence they are to be removed?
      MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was unable to answer.
      † See(4)Debates,clxxvii., 519–20.

      Naval Courts-Martial.
      MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is the established practice of the Navy to hold a public court-martial on every officer who loses or surrenders his ship; and, if so, whether he can state why this rule has not been enforced in the case of H.M.S. "Ariel," lost on Malta breakwater on 19th April.
      MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The practice is usual, but not invariable. Where all the facts have been brought out by a Court of Inquiry—as in this case—the Admiralty has power to deal with it directly without further trial. The officer in question was censured.
      MR. DALZIELasked whether the procedure differed from that which was followed five years ago in the case of the hon. Member who put this somewhat ungenerous Question.
      MR. BELLAIRSasked whether it was ungenerous to ask such a Question when, where a court-martial was held, the sword of an officer was returned to him with honour where there was no fault on his part. That was the reason why he put the Question.
      MR. DALZIEL: May I ask for an Answer to my Question?
      MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONrequested the hon. Member to give notice.
      MR. BELLAIRS: May I ask what is the insinuation which the hon. Member desires to make against me?
      MR. DALZIEL: The only explanation I desire to make—
      MR. SPEAKER: All this is quite irregular. It is a dispute between two hon. Members.
      MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Let them step outside.

      Colonial Naval Defence.
      MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the First Lord of the Admiralty relied on the best naval opinion or on his own conclusions in advising the Premiers at
      462
      the Colonial Conference to spend money on small flotillas of torpedo boats and submarines as an admirable means of coast defence, and in the assertion that the use of this method of defence practically prevents all danger of a sudden raid such as might be made by a cruising squadron.
      MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The hon. Member scarcely needs to be assured that my noble friend went to the Conference with a full sense of his responsibility, and put forward the carefully considered views of the Admiralty Board.

      Naval Officers and the Press.
      MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the rule prohibiting officers on full pay from communicating directly or indirectly with the Press applies to all officers serving at the Admiralty; and whether the rule is, and has been, strictly enforced so that all members of the Board and their subordinates observe it.
      MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Apparently the hon. Member refers to Article 12 of the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, which is binding upon all officers serving under the Board of Admiralty on shore. There is no reason to suppose that the rule is not strictly observed.
      MR. CLAUDE HAY: Is the rule strictly observed in the case of the First Sea Lord?
      MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: He is not an officer on full pay.

      Destroyers in the Mediterranean.
      MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that in 1902 a committee on the Mediterranean station, consisting of Vice-Admiral Prince Louis of Battenburg, Rear-Admiral Charles Briggs, and Captain Madden, with the approval of the then Commander-in-Chief, Sir John Fisher, drew up, after close investigation, the requisite strength of destroyers required on the Mediterranean station in case of war with a foreign nation, which foreign nation has since considerably strengthened its torpedo

      463
      flotilla; whether he is aware that this committee unanimously recommended forty-eight destroyers as the minimum requirements of the station; and whether, under these circumstances, he can state the reasons which have induced the Government to cut down the number of destroyers on the station from thirty-four in January, 1906, to eleven at the present time.
      MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The report of such a committee as the hon. Gentleman refers to would be of a strictly confidential character, and not the proper subject of Question and Answer in this House. All that I can say is that the strategical conditions governing the distribution of the Fleet now are not the same as they were in 1902.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of disclosing all the confidential documents at the Admiralty for the benefit of foreign Powers?
      MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No, Sir.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: That is the policy of these hon. Members.

      Cordite Committee.
      MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Cordite Committee has yet reported; and whether any information in reference to the Report of Evidence will be afforded to the House.
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (MR. HALDANE, Haddington): The Committee has not yet reported.
      MR. BELLAIRS: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the Question?
      MR. HALDANE: I cannot.
      LORD R. CECIL: Will the Committee report before the end of the session?
      MR. HALDANEasked for notice.

      Cavalry of the Territorial Army.
      SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State
      464
      for War whether the new cavalry of the Territorial Army are to be trained as cavalry or mounted infantry; and, if the former, will he explain the utility of a sword-bayonet as a weapon for a cavalry soldier,
      MR. HALDANE: The Cavalry of the Territorial Army will have to be trained to perform such essential cavalry functions as are necessary for home defence. As I have already stated, I am not yet in a position to say whether the performance of these duties will necessitate any alteration in the arms now carried by the Imperial Yeomanry.
      MAJOR SEELY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, in view of the fact that the only possible reinforcement of the Cavalry in time of war will be the Yeomanry, it will be as well to arm both with the same weapon?
      MR. HALDANE: That will be considered.

      Yeomanry Rifle.
      SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Yeomanry will be re-armed with the short rifle before the drill season of 1908; whether it is proposed that the rifle should be carried in buckets as in the Cavalry; and whether the buckets will be issued at the same time as the rifle by the War Office.
      MR. HALDANE: In reply to the first part of the Question I doubt whether it will be possible to re-arm the Yeomanry before next year's training. As regards the second part of the Question it is not proposed to replace the short bucket at present in possession, which is found quite suitable for use with the short rifle by units not armed with the sword.
      VISCOUNT TURNOUR: If the Yeomanry are not to be re-armed will the scheme of training for next year remain unaltered?
      MR. HALDANE: I cannot say as yet.

      Territorial Army—Arming of Cavalry.
      *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the

      465
      Cavalry supernumerary to the Yeomanry regiments of the Territorial Army, and intended to form the divisional Cavalry of the expeditionary force, are to be armed with the rifle and bayonet or with cavalry weapons.
      MR. HALDANE: These troops will be armed with the rifle and sword bayonet.

      Audit of Grants to Territorial Associations.
      *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has any further information to give with regard to the audit of grants to territorial associations either by qualified chartered or incorporated accountants; and whether the claims of both classes of qualified accountants will be duly considered in this connection.
      MR. HALDANE: The scheme will be worked out during the coming autumn, and the point raised in regard to accountants will be fully considered.

      Soldiers Mufti Regulations.
      MR. MALLET: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, permission to wear plain clothes having now been granted to officers, to warrant officers, and to some non-commissioned officers, when not on duty, and to other ranks when playing certain games, he will extend the same permission to all men of good character who are in possession of a standing pass.
      MR. HALDANE: The extension of the privilege to wear plain clothes has only recently been made to certain classes of non-commissioned officers. Soldiers of good character are under existing regulations permitted, at the discretion of their commanding officer, to wear plain clothes on pass or furlough beyond the limits of the garrison in which they are quartered. It is not proposed further to extend this privilege.

      Public Accounts Committee's Report.
      MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to paragraph 5 of the Second Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, if he will furnish the names and addresses of the South African Garrison Institutes from whom the immediate re-
      466
      payment of the £9,294 is pressed for by the Committee, specifying the amount claimed against each, and in every case stating whether the institute concerned is used by officers, non-commissioned officers, or men.
      The following Questions also appeared on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member:—
      To ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to paragraph 16 of the Second Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, whether he will in future, before concluding any contract relating to the purchase of articles on which royalties are paid, have a clause inserted providing for a graduated scale of royalty on such articles according to the number purchased, no matter whether the case may be considered important or not at the time of signing.
      To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to paragraph 6 of the Second Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, wherein it is stated that a sum of £4,649 is not properly chargeable against Army Votes, owing to the Army Council, without application to the Treasury, having sanctioned the issue of £4,000 to the General Officer Commanding in Scotland for the purpose of paying the fares of Volunteers attending a royal review at Edinburgh, and that a further sum of £649 was spent owing to a miscalculation of the number who would attend; if he is aware that the Director-General of Finance, as accounting officer, recorded his protest against the payment, and only passed it under direct instruction from the supreme head of the Department; and what measures does he intend adopting to prevent the Army Council again irregularly sanctioning the issue of public moneys without first having obtained the authority of the Treasury for so doing.
      To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Second Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, wherein it is stated that the Estimate for the actual gross expenditure on the Army Votes during the year 1905–6 was Wrong by £1,326,915 8s. 6d.; whether he is aware that the

      467
      error, which would have been larger by £245,000 but for the additional expenditure sanctioned by the Treasury on the rearmament of the artillery, is nearly twice as large as any that has occurred in Army Votes for the last twenty years, and is considerably in excess of the surplus on the combined Votes of the Navy and Civil Services and Revenue Departments in the same year, where an expenditure of £82,000,000 was involved; and whether, having in view the fact that as regards the future the Committee are without assurance that a more satisfactory result may be expected, and that they express the hope that the responsible Minister of the day will take every means necessary to secure accuracy in estimating expenditure and forecasting liabilities, he will state what measures he intends adopting to obtain this reform in Army accounts.
      To ask the Secretary of State for War with reference to paragraph 9 of the Second Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, what have been the average number of gallons of water supplied to the troops last year for each month respectively, and what are the rates under the contract entered into by the General Officer Commanding in South Africa with the municipality of Standerton in 1904, wherein the minimum rate was for 80,000 gallons per diem, and which contract is to run for twenty years from that date; what has to date been the estimated loss incurred by the public through this officer having concluded such a contract without authority; what was the name and rank of this officer; why was the War Office not notified of the fact that a contract of such a nature had been concluded until January, 1906, although the negotiations leading up to the signing of the contract lasted from November, 1903, until 29th July, 1904, thus disproving any urgency or risk of sickness to the troops; and what steps have been taken by the Secretary of State to prevent a repetition either in South Africa or elsewhere by the military authorities.
      To ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to paragraph 18 of the Second Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, whether the military authorities on realising that, owing to an exceptional drought,
      468
      the Vaal River for the first time on record was partially dried up, and that all the dams in the vicinity had failed, made any effort to obtain water by artesian boring on the farm they had purchased at Tempe, near Bloemfontein, before leasing the Bishop's Glen farm; and, if not, why and what was the purchase price of the farm at Tempe, its area in acres, the amount spent on it for the purposes of a remount depot before the Bishop's Glen farm was taken over, the rent paid per annum, and the length of the lease of the latter, and the total cost of the buildings, water troughs, and machinery for water supply put up by the military authorities thereon.
      To ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to paragraph 19 of the Second Report from the Committee of Public Accounts, what were the payments made both under Vote 10 and under the Military Works Loan in respect of contracts placed without competition; what was the nature of each contract; with whom was it concluded; what was the amount involved; and whether any steps have been taken by him to give effect to the hope expressed by the Committee that, having in view the irregularity of such proceedings, there will be no further instances.
      To ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to paragraph 22 of the Second Report from the Committee of Public Accounts, who were responsible for the facts therein alleged, namely, that a sum of more than £900 was spent in addition to a previous outlay of £3,000 in building a shed for the construction of an elongated balloon, that meanwhile, however, the manufacture proceeded so slowly that by the time the shed was completed other buildings had arisen in the vicinity which forbade the elongated balloon its necessary access to the upper air, the factory for that reason being removed from Aldershot to Swan Plateau at an estimated cost for removal and re-erection of £10,000; and whether any effort has been made to bring them before a court-martial for waste of public money, or in the event of civilians being involved has any suit been instituted against them for recovery.
      MR. HALDANE: My hon. friend has put down a number of questions dealing

      469
      with various paragraphs of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. As I informed the House in reply to a Question put by my hon. friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne on the 25th instant, the Prime Minister has promised that an opportuniy will be given to the House of discussing the Report, and I must ask my hon. friend to be good enough to defer his Questions until the debate is reached.

      Cavan Militia Barracks.
      MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state in what condition the Militia barracks at Cavan are at the present time; what is the annual cost of upkeep; what sum has been expended on improving the premises, drainage, etc., in the last five years; how many men are now stationed in these barracks; does the War Office own or occupy any other premises in the town of Cavan; is it proposed to make any alteration in the constitution or numbers of the military now stationed in Cavan; and, if so, what is proposed, and when is it to take effect.
      MR. HALDANE: The present condition of the barracks is good. The cost of the annual up-keep is £162. A sum of £1,032 has been spent on improvements in the last five years. One officer and twenty-eight men are now stationed in these barracks. No other property in Cavan is owned by the War Department, but part of the gaol premises is hired for Militia stores. As regards the last two Questions concerning the future constitution of the troops to be stationed there, I am not in a position at present to give any information.

      Shoeburyness.
      MR. WHITEHEAD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many civilians and how many ex-soldiers are now employed at the works at Shoeburyness; how many have been discharged during the last two; months; whether any, and how many, further discharges are in contemplation; and what is the maximum and what the average number of years of service in Government works of the civilians so discharged.
      I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War whether ex-soldiers en-
      470
      titled to pensions are being retained in the Government service at Shoeburyness, whilst civilians who have served for longer periods, but have no such pension to fall back upon, are being discharged; and whether he can see his way to recognise these facts in any further adjustments.
      I beg further to ask the Secretary of State for War whether before making any further discharges of civilians at Shoeburyness, he will cause inquiry to he made into the feasibility of arranging other work for the civilians who are now in risk of discharge, and whose special training may be permanently lost to the public service if they are driven to seek employment elsewhere.
      MR. HALDANE: Thirty-six civilians and 122 ex-soldiers are now employed at the works at Shoeburyness. Nineteen civilians and twenty-eight ex-soldiers have been discharged during the last two months, and thirteen further discharges are in contemplation. The maximum number of years of service in Government employ of the civilians so discharged is nine, while the average is six and a quarter years service. As regards retentions in Government service preference is in some cases given to ex-soldiers. I am making inquiries into the point raised in the last Question of the hon. Member. The discharges are due to the completion of some considerable works in connection with the butts.

      Royal Army Medical College.
      MR. REMNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in the case of the Royal Army Medical College now being erected at Millbank at a cost of £80,000 of public money, the following sub-contracts have been let abroad, namely granite £2,156, fireproof construction £7,768, asphalte £1,620, wood flooring £1,400, Italian mosaic pavement £800, sanitary and lavatory wares to be made abroad by an English firm with factory abroad £1,800, window-glass in Belgium £260, and paint from Hamburg £100; whether he will state why any or all of these contracts have been placed abroad instead of in this country; and whether any steps were taken to ensure that the fair wages clauses which are enforced in British

      471
      contracts were observed in any or all of these contracts.
      MR. HALDANE: The Norwegian granite and Frazzi form of fireproof construction were selected on grounds of economy. The asphalte was done by the Val de Travers Company, who hold the War Department Contract for the supply of asphalte generally. The wood-flooring used for building operations is practically all imported. The mosaic flooring was executed by English firms. The sanitary and lavatory wares were supplied by London firms who have large works in this country. It has not been possible to trace, in so short a notice, the source of manufacture of the glass and paint. The notice as to the fair wages clause contained in War Department contracts was posted on the works as well as inserted in the general contract. I would point out that the contract in which these items are included was placed in February, 1905, before I took up office.
      MR. REMNANT: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the specifications for the different articles and does he accept the responsibility?
      MR. HALDANEsaid he did not know what was meant by whether he accepted responsibility for specifications made for a contract in February, 1905. The specification was made before he came into office, and he had no reason to think it was not properly made.
      MR. REMNANT: Does the right hon. Gentleman approve of that policy?
      MR. SPEAKER: That is a question of opinion.
      MR. REMNANT: Was no British tender invited for these materials?
      MR. HALDANE: I do not know. It was before my time.

      Scottish Volunteers and Sunday Entrainment.
      MR. GULLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that many of the Volunteer regiments in Edinburgh and Fife were conveyed to camp by special trains on Sundays; that this is against Scottish sentiment and causes
      472
      unnecessary Sunday labour; and whether he will issue instructions that in future these movements of Volunteers shall take place only on weekdays.
      MR. HALDANE: The arrangement for the conveyance of Volunteers to camp are made under local orders, but I am aware that in some cases the moves take place on Sunday. The railway companies are, I understand, prepared to move units on Saturday in all cases where it is absolutely necessary in the interests of the service, but in view of the heavy public traffic which they have to deal with at this period of the year I do not think they can be asked to do this in every case. Moreover it must be remembered that the Volunteers are carried at a reduced rate as a concession and not as a right.
      VISCOUNT TURNOUR: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the view that it is against Scottish sentiment for Volunteers to travel by train on Sunday?
      [No Answer was returned.]

      Scottish Counties and Militia Quarters.
      MR. YOUNGER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the liabilities on counties in Scotland to provide stores and quarters for Militia battalions under the Militia Act of 1854 will continue in force after the passing of the Territorial Forces Bill; and, if so, what provision has been made for the War Department acquiring these Militia stores and quarters, which were provided and continue to be maintained from county funds.
      MR. HALDANE: So long as the buildings now existing are required for Militia purposes, the liabilities of the counties under the Act of 1854 will continue. I am not in a position at present to give any information on the other points raised in the Question.

      Government Lands at Shoeburyness.
      MR. WHITEHEAD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many acres of the land acquired for the Government works at Shoeburyness, in which dismissals are now taking place, are not occupied by buildings; how much of

      473
      such land will cease to be in active use consequent upon the reduced employment at the works; and whether the War Office are taking any, and, if so, what steps with a view to restoring this land to profitable use, and thus affording opportunities for labour.
      MR. HALDANE: The greater part of the Government land at Shoeburyness is required for ranges and danger areas adjoining such ranges. The use of such land is not affected by reduction of men employed at the works at Shoeburyness. Such land as can be put to profitable use without detriment to military requirements is so used.

      Disbanded Battalions.
      MR. CLAVELL SALTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state, as regards officers and non-commissioned officers of the battalions recently disbanded, how many have accepted transfers into other regiments, have been absorbed into their own regiments, have been given temporary appointments, are still without employment; how is it proposed to deal with those now holding temporary appointments when the term for which they have been appointed expires; and are any other, and what, steps being taken to relieve the congestion caused by the reductions.
      MR. HALDANE: Thirty-three officers have been transferred with their own consent to other regiments; two lieutenant-colonels have been transferred to the Staff; 160 vacancies in the old establishment have been absorbed, but the new reduced establishment has not yet been reached, and there remain 154 officers supernumerary to the reduced establishment. Sixty-six officers have been given temporary appointments. When the tenure of these appointments expires, their cases will be dealt with as opportunities offer, by extra-regimental promotion or absorption in their own regiments. No other steps are possible than those which are being taken. As regards the non-commissioned officers, of whom there were 803 in the nine battalions at the time the order was issued for their reduction, 435 have been absorbed, discharged at their own wish, or transferred to the Reserve or other units; thus leaving 368 who are
      474
      employed with the Home battalion or depots of their regiments.

      Defences of the Thames and Medway.
      SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if all the mine fields are abolished in the Thames, and the recently mounted guns, new pattern, have been removed from Hope Battery, Cliffe, New Tavern, and Tilbury Forts, and the use of the Brennan torpedo at Cliffe Fort has practically been abandoned.
      MR. HALDANE: It is not considered expedient in the interests of the defence the United Kingdom to give any information in reply to the points raised in the Question.
      MR. ASHLEY: Have any guns been removed? I do not ask how many.
      MR. HALDANE: I have answered the Question.
      SIR GILBERT PARKER: Has not a statement already been made in this House with regard to the abolition of the mines?
      MR. HALDANE: If so, it must have been a rash statement.

      Royal Engineer Submarine Miners Officers.
      SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what are the intentions of the Government regarding the future of the officers of the Royal Engineer submarine miners; and if it is still the intention to abolish submarine mining for coast and river defence.
      MR. HALDANE: As regards the Militia R.E. submarine miners it is proposed to retain all suitable officers who are willing to stay as a reserve for duties in connection with electric lights. In the case of the Volunteer R.E. submarine miners it is proposed to retain the corps, and therefore the officers, at those places where their services are required in connection with electric light duties at an establishment suitable to the requirements in each case. As regards the last part of the Question I am not aware of any change in the general policy as regards

      475
      submarine mining, but this policy rests with the Admiralty.

      Transvaal Loan.
      MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received information that the loan for £5,000,000 has been passed by the Transvaal Parliament; and has he any summary of the Act, giving the objects upon which the proceeds of the loan are to be spent.
      THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (MR. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): Yes, Sir, but my semi-official information with regard to its contents can only be of secondary value. The hon. Member will appreciate that we must leave the Bill in its final form.
      MR. FELL: Will full particulars be given this House of the objects to which the money will be applied?
      MR. CHURCHILL: Very full information will be given as to the purposes to which the loan will be applied, so far as that information is in the Government's possession.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Am I not right in saying the Transvaal is a self-governing Colony?
      [No Answer was returned.]

      Transvaal Parliamentary Debate on Chinese Labour.
      MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the interesting statements made in the recent debate in the Transvaal Parliament on the Chinese labour question, the Secretary of State would take steps to have the principal speeches in that debate published in the next Blue-book on South African affairs.
      MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.

      Gambling Dens in the Federated Malay States.
      MR. LAIDLAW: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken in fulfilment of the promise
      476
      made last year for the gradual suppression of licensed gambling dens in the Federated Malay States; and if such steps have been effective in the respective States.
      MR. CHURCHILL: Enactments have now been passed in the four States providing for the prohibition of gambling within areas to be proclaimed by the residents. Copies will be found in the Library. So far as I am aware, the only districts which have yet been proclaimed are the Coast and Tampin districts in the Negri Sembilan. I am not aware how far the prohibition has been effective, but the High Commissioner will shortly be asked for a report. I understand that the leases of the gambling farms in the other States have not yet expired, so that no measure of prohibition is possible at present.

      Native Labour on the Rand.
      MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the-Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any official information showing that there is now an abundance of native labour for the mines on the Rand.
      MR. CHURCHILL: In his statement at the opening of the Transvaal Parliament on 14th June General Botha said that "the supply of native labour is and has for some time been in marked excess of the demand," also that "owing to the large supply of natives from other sources the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association has for some time stopped recruiting in the Cape Colony, and numbers of labourers recruited have been sent back without obtaining employment." Dr. Jameson stated in the Cape Parliament on 27th June that in the Cape Colony "the present position was that recruiting operations had been entirely stopped, there being at the moment a sufficient supply of labour to meet the requirements of the mines, but it was anticipated that active operations would begin again in August next." He referred to a scheme for facilitating and increasing the supply of labour from the Cape Colony to the Rand which the two Governments have had under their consideration. The Cape Ministers find there is a widespread prejudice against the Rand as a centre of employment

      477
      among Cape natives, which is not accounted for by aversion to underground employment, and which they desire to remove. They consider that there is no reason why the supply from the Cape Colony should not be materially increased, provided that it is possible to avoid sudden changes in the terms and conditions of employment offered by mine owners, and that any changes which become necessary are brought gradually into effect.
      SIR GILBERT PARKER: asked whether the arrest of the development of the Transvaal did not account for the present supply of native labour, and whether there was a sufficient abundance of labour to replace that of 50,000 Chinamen when they were repatriated.
      MR. BONAR LAW: asked whether General Botha's statements were not made in the course of a debate in the Transvaal Parliament and were denied by Members sitting on the opposite side in that Parliament.
      MR. CHURCHILL: The Question on the Paper was whether the Colonial Office had any official information showing that there was now an abundance of native labour. In reply to that Question I have read quotations from speeches of the Prime Minister of the Transvaal and the Prime Minister of Cape Colony.
      MR. BONAR LAW: Can the right hon. Gentleman consider that statements made in debate, all of which were denied at the time, constitute official information?
      MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir, I think we are certainly entitled to attach some importance to the statements of the heads of self-governing Colonies.
      *MR. MACKARNESSasked whether Dr. Jameson's statement in the Cape Parliament was not made in reply to a question put after notice.
      MR. CHURCHILL: I believe that was so.
      SIR GILBERT PARKERasked the right hon. Gentleman to reply to his Question as to whether the plentiful supply of natives was not due to the stoppage of
      478
      development work in the Transvaal, and whether the right hon. Gentleman had any reason to think that there would be an abundance of labour after the repatriation of the Chinese.
      MR. CHURCHILL: That is not the Question on the Paper. I have my own opinion on the matter the hon. Gentleman refers to, and I shall be prepared to supply an Answer to a Question on the subject if put in the proper form on the Paper.
      MR. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he can find a Colonial Premiership for the hon. Gentleman?
      SIR GILBERT PARKER: May I ask, Sir, whether the supplementary Question I asked was not derived from the Question?
      MR. SPEAKER: I thought the Question sufficiently cognate to allow it to pass; but if the right hon. Gentleman has no information at his disposal he is quite right to ask for notice.

      Kaffirs and the Ban.
      MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it was part of the arrangement with the Transvaal Government for the repatriation of the Chinese that Kaffirs were to be attracted to the Rand by the increase of facilities for the sale and supply of intoxicants to natives; and what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take, in the interests of the natives, with reference to the Bill to amend the Liquor Law which has been introduced by the Transvaal Government into the Colonial Legislature.
      MR. CHURCHILL: I do not know what the hon. Member means by an arrangement with the Transvaal Government, but at any rate the reply to the first part of the Question is, as he knows perfectly well, in the negative; as to the second paragraph I have no knowledge of the Bill and can make no statement upon it.

      Panama Canal Labour.
      MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many labourers from

      479
      Trinidad and other British possessions in the West Indies are now working on the Panama Canal.
      MR. CHURCHILL: The Answer given on behalf of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the 15th of May last showed that in September, 1906, over 10,000 men from these islands were at work in the engineering department and earthworks of the canal. I have no later information.
      MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies on what date the Courts decided that the contract entered into between the Commissioners and Trinidad labourers cannot be enforced; and by what Court was the decision pronounced.
      MR. CHURCHILL: The decision was, I understand, given by the Supreme Court of the United States of America, but I have at present no precise or official information, and inquiry is being made formally by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

      Southern Nigerian Concessions.
      MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information showing that Mr. Brown, a European at Ijebu Ode, Lagos, South Nigeria, has obtained a concession to some 600 square miles of territory from Awujale, the King of Ijebu Ode, for the purpose of cutting mahogany logs; that Awujale and the chiefs repudiate the claim on the ground that the document signed by them merely conceded the right to prospect for timber, with the option after six months of entering into an agreement for cutting rights; that the only money which has passed between the parties is the sum of £20, which was considered to be a return for the hospitality extended to Mr. Brown by Awujale and the chiefs; that the natives, who previously had received licences to cut logs, were deprived of this privilege and of their livelihood, and some of them imprisoned for disputing the right of Mr. Brown; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
      MR. CHURCHILL: Telegraphic information which we have received indicates that the transaction in question
      480
      is capable of satisfactory explanation; but as it is desirable that the reply should be categorical and complete I would ask my hon. friend to wait until the full report which has been called for arrives by mail.

      African Hut Tax.
      SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the amount of the hut tax in East Africa, Central Africa, and Nigeria; whether, if the average family is five persons, it amounts to about six annas per capita; and whether, the present profit on each rupee being more than four annas, he will consider the possibility, by the introduction of these coins on a much larger scale, to substitute for the hut tax the collection of the needed revenue by the seignorage on the rupee currency minted especially for these three districts.
      MR. CHURCHILL: In the East Africa Protectorate the rate of the hut tax is three rupees a year, except in the Kenia and Jubaland provinces, which are not yet fully administered, and in which the rate is two rupees. A rate of three rupees is equivalent to nearly ten annas a head for an average family of five persons. In British Central Africa the rate varies from six to twelve shillings a hut according to district. Indian currency is not in use in the Protectorate, and the hon. Member's Question does not, therefore, appear to be relevant to that country. In Nigeria there is no hut tax and Indian currency is not used. With regard to the latter part of the Question, I informed the hon. Member for Hoxton on the 23rd of July that there is no prospect that it will be possible to appropriate for the purposes of the East Africa Protectorate any part of the seignorage on the Indian rupees in circulation. A special subsidiary coinage is being introduced, but the profit on these coins, especially on the lower denominations, will be less than on the rupee, and it is impossible to say what part of this profit, if any, will be available for purposes of revenue. In any case, the existence of the tax does not impose any harsh or severe burden, it is a stimulus to habits of industry and the use of coin, and as no difficulty is experienced in its collection I see no reason for abolishing it.
      SIR EDWARD SASSOONwas understood to ask who appropriated the revenue arising from the coinage.
      MR. CHURCHILL: If any profit is reaped on the coinage of smaller denominations it would be reaped by the revenue of the different Colonies, but the Indian seignorage is rigidly reaped by the Indian Government.

      The New Hebrides.
      MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the French contraband trade with the New Hebrides is inflicting injury upon Australian traders with the islands; and whether he can state the present position of affairs with reference to the settlement of this question.
      MR. CHURCHILL: I have at present nothing to add to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Gravesend on last Tuesday. †

      Great Britain and Russia.
      MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Sir William Nicholson has come to London for the purpose of consulting about the final draft of a Russian treaty; whether this treaty is to be of a general character or is only to relate to outstanding boundary difficulties, or whether, as in the case of the Anglo-French treaty, arrangements regarding local interests are to cover a general entente and rapprochement; and whether, in coming to any arrangement with Russia, the Secretary of State proposes to take into account the feeling of this country regarding the present relations between the Russian governing authorities and the Russian people.
      THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. RUNCIMAN, Dews-bury; for Sir EDWARD GREY):It would be quite unusual and most undesirable to make statements as to the special reason for the movements of any ambassadors. With regard to the rest of the hon. Member's Question, if any agreement is made with the Russian Government its terms will be laid before
      † See(4)Debates, clxxviii., 1348–9.
      482
      Parliament. My right hon. friend can only repeat the Answer given to the hon. Member on 13th June, in which he said that "the direct object of the negotiations is to prevent conflict and difficulties between the two Powers in the part of Asia which affects the Indian frontier and the Russian frontiers in that region. If the negotiations result in an agreement it will deal only with these questions." The internal affairs of another country cannot be brought into negotiations of this kind. As to the analogy of the Anglo-French agreement, surely it is obvious that the developments to which the hon. Member refers were the result of good feeling and public opinion, which is always free to take its own course, and which cannot be constrained, but which can be, when it chooses, the most effective influence in promoting goodwill between nations.
      *MR. REES: May I ask whether the desirability of a general understanding with Great Britain is not the one subject on which the Russian Government and its Russian opponents are agreed?
      MR. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot make any statement on the subject.

      British Commercial Agents.
      MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether there has been at any time any inquiry into the work of the commercial agents in foreign countries; and, if so, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of such inquiry.
      MR. RUNCIMAN: The Departmental Committee on Commercial Intelligence, which reported in 1898, considered among other subjects the commercial work of consular officers in foreign countries. The Report was published in 1898 (C.8962.) A Departmental Committee on the Consular Service also reported in 1903 (C. D. 1634.) An examination of the system of commercial attachés and agents was made quite recently by a Committee consisting of Sir Eldon Gorst of the Foreign Office and Mr. Llewellyn Smith of the Board of Trade. I have no objection to laying the Report on the Table.
      MR. HAROLD COX: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to have it laid this session, and if possible, before any decision is taken?
      MR. RUNCIMAN: I will undertake that the Report shall be laid.

      United States Tariff on Works of Art.
      MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he is yet in a position to state the result of the negotiations which have passed between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States with reference to the import duty levied in the United States upon British works of art, which is at the rate of 20 per cent.ad valorem as compared with 15 per cent. charged upon works of art imported from other European countries.
      MR. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir; my right hon. friend is not in a position to make a statement on the subject yet.

      London Florists
      *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the result of the consideration of the grievance of the London florists resulting from the enforcement of the Factory Act in respect of their shops and employees following upon the decision in the case of Hoare v. Green.
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): After careful consideration of the representations which I have received from the trade, and of the Report of the inspector, I have informed the trade that I shall be prepared to consider an application for the extension to the trade generally of the special exceptions in Sections 43 and 49 of the Act, but that the requirements of the Act as to non-employment in the workshop of women and young persons on Sunday, and as to the half-holiday being given to all women and young persons in the workshop on the same day must be complied with. As regards these two points I have no power to grant any exemption, and I understand from the inspector's Report that in a number of florists' establishments there is no Sunday employment of women and young persons at present, and that, in the opinion
      484
      of many florists, the difficulty as to giving the half-holiday on the same day is one that can be overcome.
      *MR. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unless the severity of these regulations is mitigated the effect will be the substitution of male foreigners for English women in the trade?
      MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member has told me so.

      Lighthouse Administration.
      MR. W. R. REA: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he expects to be in a position to lay upon the Table of the House, before the end of the present session, a copy of the Report of the Royal Commission which was appointed last year to inquire into the lighthouse administration of the United Kingdom; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (MR. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs): I understand that the Royal Commission in question has just concluded the taking of evidence, but that it is not likely that their Report will be published before the end of the present session.

      British Commercial Agents Abroad.
      MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is part of the duty of British commercial agents in foreign countries to supply information which will assist British manufacturers to compete with foreign manufacturers; and whether it will also be the duty of the commercial agents whom it is proposed to send to the Colonies to assist British manufacturers by similar means to compete with Colonial manufacturers.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part of the Question, it is intended that when commercial agents are appointed in the Colonies, it shall be their duty to do all in their power to supply information which shall be of use to British traders.
      MR. HAROLD COX: To enable them to compete with Colonial manufacturers
      SIR GILBERT PARKER: Is it not the case that these commercial agents also enable British manufacturers to compete with foreign manufacturers?
      [No Answer was audible.]

      British Commercial Agents in the Colonies.
      MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has at any time received any representations from British manufacturers asking for the appointment of Government commercial agents in British Colonies; whether those representations explain what service a Government agent will render which British manufacturers are incapable of procuring for themselves; and, if so, whether he will lay such representations upon the Table of the House.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: In this matter the Board of Trade are acting in consultation with their Commercial Intelligence Committee which is fully representative of British manufacturers, and one of whose principal functions is to advise the Board as to the best methods by which Government action can usefully help British traders by obtaining and circulating commercial information. The subject is too large a one to be discussed in answer to a Question.

      Newbury Train Service.
      MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state what is the increase in the number of trains calculated to pass through Newbury during the month of July, 1907, as compared with July, 1897; what addition, if any, has been made to the permanent staff of the station to meet the increased traffic; and whether any fresh accommodation has been provided for passengers at all.
      The following Questions also appeared on the Paper in the name of the same hon. Member—
      To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that it is admitted by the Great Western Railway Company that their station at Newbury is fifty-nine years old and has never been enlarged, in spite of the enormously increased traffic caused by the construction of two new connecting
      486
      lines and the diversion through Newbury of part of the main line traffic; that this traffic has been still further added to during the last two years by the holding of four annual race meetings near Newbury of two days each; that, though the platform is in places only six feet wide, daily expresses run through the station at over fifty miles an hour to the danger of the passengers and traffic; and whether he has been informed that the remonstrances of the Newbury Corporation have been, for eight years, ignored by the company; and whether he will send down an inspector to inquire into the fitness of the station and its arrangements for the existing volume of traffic.
      To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the land alleged by the Great Western Railway Company to be necessary before they can build a new station at Newbury has been offered to the company by the trustees of the Newbury Municipal Consolidated Charities for £1,600, and that the company have declined to pay the price; and whether he will inquire why, if the company are not satisfied with the price asked for by the trustees, they do not use the powers placed at their disposal by the law for compulsorily obtaining the land?
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The railway company, with whom I have again communicated in this matter, state that they are unable to add anything material to the information already given which has been communicated to my hon. friend. Under the circumstances I have decided to prosecute an inquiry into the matter.

      Light Railway Bill.
      COLONEL A. GARDNER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the lapsing of the Light Railway Bill has caused inconvenience and loss in agricultural districts; and if he sees his way to introduce legislation on the subject during the present session.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The continuance of the Light Railways Act of 1896 will be provided for in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, pending the introduction of further legislation on this subject. It has been my intention to

      487
      deal will this matter in a Bill, but as I can see no chance of getting it through this year, I do not propose introducing it.

      Railway Companies and Irish Butter Trade.
      MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to several cases in which butter consigned from Ireland was delayed and damaged in transit, namely, a consignment sent from Castleblaney to the Glasgow depôt, 9, Ingram Street, Glasgow, which arrived on the 18th instant badly damaged and three pounds of the butter lost; fourteen boxes of butter sent from Aylwardstown Station, consigned viâ Dublin and Holyhead to 34, Cumberland Street, Liverpool, delayed, boxes broken, and butter over-heated and soiled; and thirty boxes of butter from Carrick-on-Suir to depôt, Cumberland Street, Liverpool, also consigned via Waterford and Liverpool, boxes broken, butter running through them, some quite empty in the sides and hollow in the centre; all those consigned by the Irish Co-operative Agency Society; and whether notice will be taken of this conduct by the railway companies concerned.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have communicated with the railway companies concerned in the land transit of the consignments referred to, and I will inform the hon. Member of the result.

      Government Capital.
      MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade is systematically collecting and arranging particulars relating to the combination and concentration of capital in the United Kingdom; and, if so, whether there is any intention of presenting an official Report embodying such particulars for the information of the public.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The movements referred to are being carefully watched and noted by the Board of Trade. There is no intention at the present time to publish any Report upon the subject.

      Navigation and Shipping Returns.
      MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade with reference to the annual statement of the navigation and shipping of the United Kingdom whether the figures of entrances and clearances for each port are prepared on the same basis; whether the figures for Southampton are to be regarded as a complete account of the foreign shipping trade of the port within the limits of the explanation afforded by the introductory notes on page vii.; whether the figures for Dover are enhanced by a different mode of classification; and whether he can give any indication, if the same mode of classification were applied to both Dover and Southampton, as to what difference in the number of vessels and net register tons would be made in the figures
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The figures as to entrances and clearances of shipping are now prepared on the same basis for all ports. Prior to 1907, vessels in the Foreign trade calling at or off a port to land or embark passengers or baggage only, were not included in the returns unless they were brought to at or near the docks or quays of the ports. Thus at Southampton such vessels bringing to below Netley were excluded, while at Dover similar vessels which, as a rule, brought to at or near the piers, were included. Since the beginning of this year all vessels calling at or off the ports to land or embark passengers or baggage have been included, whether brought to at or near the docks or quays or not. The number of vessels "calling off" at Southampton which were excluded from the Returns in 1906 owing to the operation of the rule then in force was 338, with a total net tonnage of 1,222,443 tons. These were all foreign, and the new rule will therefore involve an apparent increase in the tonnage of foreign vessels entered and cleared this year as compared with 1906.

      Bermondsey Paupers.
      MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that between sixty and seventy able-bodied men were turned out of Tanner Street workhouse, Bermondsey, on Wednesday, 17th July, that one being unable to find work has. since asked the workhouse officials to.

      489
      admit him and been refused, though destitute; and whether he proposes to take any action in this matter with the object of preventing able-bodied destitute men tramping the streets in this condition.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. JOHN BURNS, Battersea): I understand that the visiting committee recently had a special call-over of the inmates of the Tanner Street workhouse, when 301 inmates were seen. Fifty-two able-bodied men were ordered to take their discharge and seek work, and two were directed to do so when certified to be fit by the medical officer. Leave of absence was given to eight men to seek work, and eight more applied for their discharge. Of these, twenty-six have since applied for orders of readmission to the workhouse and have been readmitted. I understand that in no case has readmission been refused, but the men's statement as to where they have applied for employment is taken down and verified before an order for readmission is given. It does not appear to be necessary that I should take any action in the matter.

      Liverpool Guardians and Catholic Poor Law Children.
      MR. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the resolution passed unanimously at a conference of Catholic Poor Law guardians, held at Liverpool, appealing to the President of the Local Government Board to take steps to remedy the existing law by which boards of guardians can give away Catholic children to non-Catholic foster-parents, and thus deprive them of the opportunities of practising their religious duties; and can he say what action he intends taking to remedy this grievance.
      MR. JOHN BURNS: I have received a copy of the resolution referred to. I am not sure what the precise class of cases is which had led to the passing of the resolution, and I am making inquiry on the subject. Where a child is boarded out by the guardians, whether within or without the union, the regulations require that the foster-parent shall be of the same religious creed as that to which the child belongs.

      Darfield and Low Valley Schools-
      MR. LANE-FOX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education what is the accommodation of the mixed elementary school at Darfield; whether the managers of that school refused to admit forty-one girls from Low Valley owing to the school being already filled in excess of its proper accommodation; whether the local education authority of the West Riding instructed the master of the school to disregard the instructions of the managers not to admit such children; and whether a local authority has the right to override any such decision of the managers of a school.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (MR. MCKENNA, Monmouthshire, N.): The recognised accommodation of the school referred to is 360. I am informed that the managers of the school passed a resolution refusing admission to the scholars in question and that the local education authority directed that they should be admitted. The local education authority appear to have acted within their rights, and the managers have been so informed.
      MR. LANE-FOX: In view of the larger number of attendances, will the right hon. Gentleman not admit that there is overcrowding and that the Roman Catholic school is necessary?
      MR. McKENNA: I must first see the monthly Return.
      *MR. CLOUGH: Is it a fact that these children were excluded, not by the managers as a body, but by improper action on the part of their clerical correspondent?
      MR. McKENNAasked for notice.
      MR. LANE-FOX: Had the local authority any right to override the decision of the managers?
      MR. McKENNA: It acted within its rights.

      Elementary Schools.
      SIR HENRY CRAIK: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education

      491
      whether he is prepared, in respect to the special grant of £100,000 for building elementary schools, which was expressly forbidden by the Education Act of 1870, to apply the rule imposed by Parliament upon the only grant possible under that Act, and embody the conditions under which the special grant may be earned in a Minute which shall not have force until it has lain for not less than one month upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament.
      MR. McKENNA: No, Sir.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: So far as I understand the Answer, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would allow me to ask a supplementary Question, as the matter is important. He proposes to give a grant contrary to the Act of 1870. He proposes, in giving that grant, which even if it was legal would have to be granted under conditions laid down in the Minute, to absolve himself both from the general provisions of the Act and from the provisions requiring a Minute. Is that not so?
      MR. McKENNA: No, Sir; the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken on every point.
      SIR HENRY CRAIK: Might I ask if it is not the case that such limited building grants as are permitted under the Act of 1870 were not to be embodied in Code or Minute, solely for the reasons that the Act itself laid down precisely the conditions under which these grants were to be paid, and that where the Act did not lay down such conditions they were, as in the case of annual Parliamentary grants, imposed by the Code? Having now—
      MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is exceeding the limits of a Question.
      SIR HENRY CRAIK: I ask whether it is not the case that the conditions of a building grant were not to be laid down in a Minute solely for the reason that the Act itself lays down the conditions.
      MR. McKENNA:That is a historical inquiry into the circumstances under which the Act of 1870 was passed. I must have notice of such a Question.

      Caithness and Orkney Mails.
      MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the train conveying mails to the counties of Caithness and Orkney is almost invariably late in the tourist and shooting season, and that, in consequence, the mail steamer often is compelled to undertake the passage in the dark; if the railway company is under contract with the Government; and, if so, what is the stipulated time for mail trains to arrive at Thurso and Wick.
      Captain NORTON(for Mr. Sydney Buxton):It is a fact that the mail train to the North of Scotland is frequently late during the tourist season; and in reply to remonstrances on the subject, the railway company have represented the difficulty of maintaining punctuality on a railway with a single line of rails at a time when the passenger traffic is greatly in excess of the normal amount. The train, which is run under contract, should arrive at Thurso at 3.35 p.m., and at Wick at 3.50 p.m. The mail steamer to Orkney has, even when the train is punctual, to make the passage after dark during the greater part of the year.

      Telegraph. Messengers.
      SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if the Post Office are prepared to retain in their employment at the Post Office those boys who would in the ordinary course be discharged at the age of sixteen, until the age of eighteen, if they are willing to enlist in the Regular Army; and whether the Post Office will guarantee that on discharge from the colours, physically fit and with a good character, re-employment in the Post Office will be found for those thus enlisted.
      Captain NORTON (for Mr. Sydney Buxton): If a scheme of the kind suggested by the hon. Member could be devised, which would be purely voluntary and free from the objections attending former schemes of the same kind, it would assist in solving the problem of the further employment of telegraph messengers. My right hon. friend is not,

      493
      however, at present prepared to put forward such a scheme.
      SIR SAMUEL SCOTTinquired if Mr. A. H. Norton, an official of the Post Office, who gave evidence before the Committee on Employment for ex-Soldiers, spoke for himself or for the Post Office.
      MR. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that Question.

      National Telephone Charges at Kendal.
      MR. STEWART-SMITH: I beg to ask the Post-master-General if he is aware that the proposal of the National Telephone Company to impose a charge of 1d. for all calls between the several exchanges of the Kendal area is said to be with the approval of the Postmaster-General; if so, when was this approval given; and was the Postmaster-General aware that in commencing business in the Kendal district the National Telephone Company have specifically committed themselves in writing to the secretary of the chamber of commerce to give a free service between all exchanges within that district.
      Captain NORTON (for Mr. Sydney Buxton): So long as the National Telephone Company's charges are within the limits fixed by the schedule to the agreement of 2nd February, 1905, my right hon. friend's consent is not necessary for any modifications of tariff. His consent has not been asked for or given for any special charges in the Kendal area, and he has no reason to think that the charges there exceed the agreed maximum. The matter referred to in the last paragraph of the Question does not appear to be one in which he can intervene.
      MR. LEIF JONESinquired if the fact that the company committed itself in writing to the chamber of commerce to give a free service, and that it was now varying the agreement, did not justify the Post Office in interfering?
      Captain NORTON: No, it is a matter between the chamber and the company.

      Imprisonment for Debt.
      MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General what steps he proposes to take in order to carry out the Resolution of the House of the 20th March last, that the present powers of committing to prison for non-payment of debt ought to be restricted.
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Walton, Leeds, S.): No legislation can be introduced this session.

      Worcester Election Petition.
      MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General if it is now finally decided that the Crown shall undertake no prosecutions against persons concerned in the recent trial at Worcester under the Corrupt Practices Act.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman answers may I ask whether, as these people have been sufficiently punished by the shame and notoriety of the offence, he does not regard it as consistent with his duty to take no further proceedings against them, seeing that far greater Parliamentary offences, such as the sale and purchase of peerages, are allowed to pass with impunity.
      Sir JOHN WALTON: The hon. Member is apparently under the impression that no prosecutions were brought in consequence of the Report drawn up on this matter. Five prosecutions were instituted. Of these one was withdrawn, and four cases were brought before the Grand Jury. The Bill against one defendant was thrown out, leaving three defendants to be tried before a jury. They all put in pleas of "Guilty." We do not propose to institute any further prosecutions.

      Shetland Herring Stations.
      MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been called to the fact that in Shetland forty-eight herring stations are now represented by nine, 866 boats by forty-five, and that wide-spread alarm exists throughout the entire country; if he is aware that the Norwegians drove the whale killers from their country on the ground that the herring industry was

      495
      being ruined; and if he has any official Reports showing that the herring industry has recovered in Norway since the whale killers were driven off; and whether he proposes to take any measures to restore confidence to the fishermen.
      The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Sinclair, Forfarshire): My hon. friend does not give the years to which his figures apply, and it has not there-tore been possible to verify his statement. There is some concern in regard to this matter, but, so far as I am aware, there is no reason to suppose that that concern is general. The prohibition against whaling by the Norwegian Government affected certain districts only, and my information is that no appreciable improvement in the produce of the fisheries has resulted. I may add that the fishing on the East Coast of Scotland this season has been extremely successful, while the total catch for Shetland is now only 8,000 crans short of last year. The Whale Fisheries (Scotland) Bill which is now before the House contains proposals for the regulation of that industry, and I earnestly hope that Parliament may see fit to pass it into law this session.

      Medical Relief in the Highlands.
      MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware of the fact that the Congested Districts Board are precluded from in any way assisting the poor people of the Highlands and Islands in respect of medical and nursing assistance; that there are islands and districts far distant from any possible medical and nursing assistance; and whether, in view of the fact that the position of the Congested Districts Board is now under consideration, he will consider the desirability of extending their powers or the powers of any body that may succeed them.
      MR. SINCLAIR: My hon. friend is correct in stating that the existing powers of the Board as conferred by Parliament do not extend to the purposes referred to. I am aware that the resources of the authorities responsible for public health in certain districts are slender, but I do not think that extension of powers to the Congested Districts Board is the best way of meeting the difficulty.

      Orkney and the Small Landowners Bill.
      MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been directed to a petition from the hundreds of small owners in Orkney whose rental is under £50 (the limit of the Small Landowners Bill); and if, in view of the fact that the business, profession, or trade of those small owners is seriously threatened by the Small Landowners Bill and that the Government recognise the serious nature of their petition, he will state what steps the Government propose to take to reassure those persons that their living will not be endangered.
      MR. SINCLAIR: A petition signed by about eighty persons was received praying that no tenant should get fixity of tenure whose proprietor owns no more land than is worth £50 a year. The Government will consider whether, with a view to meeting such ease, it will be possible in the Small Landholders Bill to give statutory recognition of the principle accepted by the Crofter Commission in the case of Slater v. Esslemont where the proprietrix of a croft desired, and was allowed, to resume possession thereof in order personally to reside in and occupy the same.

      The Official Debates.
      MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the widely differing opinions of Members of this House on the subject, he will undertake that no final decision will be taken on the Report of the Committee on Parliamentary Debates until some opportunity has been afforded for discussion, or some effort has been made to ascertain the general sense of the House thereon.
      The PRIME MINISTER and FIRST LORD of the TREASURY (Sir H. Camp-bell-Bannerman, Stirling Burghs): My hon. friend may be satisfied that no precipitate steps will be taken in this matter and that we shall endeavour to ascertain the feelings of the House.

      Army Bill—Lords' Amendments.
      MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he will say when will the Lords' Amendments to the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill be put down for consideration by this House.
      SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot yet fix a day.
      MR. ASHLEY: Will it be this week?
      SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have said I cannot fix a day.

      London Bills.
      MR. SEAVERNS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether it would be possible to make arrangements by which an amount of time might be devoted to legislation for the special needs of the 6,000,000 of people in London which would more closely approximate that devoted to Scottish and Irish legislation; and whether arrangements can be made whereby important London measures, such as the Water Bill, shall come before the House for discussion before 11 o'clock p.m.
      SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am well aware that the measures specially affecting London have not had their fair proportion of time this year, but I hope that that will not be so in future.
      LORD R. CECIL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks it at all probable that three important subjects affecting London—namely, the traffic question, the Port of London question, and the electric light question—will be dealt with next session?
      MR. T. M. HEALY: Can you not arrange to give the English a Parliament to themselves?
      [No Answer was returned.]

      Scottish Local Veto Bill.
      MR. LAIDLAW: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if, in view of the disappointment felt by a section of the people of Scotland at the failure of the Government to introduce temperance legislation this year, he will meet the earnest wishes of a great majority of the Scottish Members and introduce a Local Veto Bill for Scotland in the early part of next session.
      SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am afraid I cannot make any promise in this matter. I greatly regret that the
      498
      private Member's Bill for this purpose which was so fortunate in its introduction has been crushed out this session.

      Committee on Post Office Servants
      MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, with reference to the Report of the Select Committee on Post Office Servants, whether, in view of the fact that the Committee have presented to the House a number of recommendations without fully giving their reasons in some intances, as, for example, paragraph 331 recommending low rates of pay for the 7,700 London postmen, he will afford an early opportunity for the discussion of the Report to enable the House to become better aquainted with the reasons entertained by the Committee for recommending low wages.
      SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Select Committee on Post Office Servants was representative of all Parties in the House; and, as the House recognises, went most exhaustively and carefully into the question set before them of the adequacy or otherwise of the remuneration paid to Post Office servants. The Committee have now reported for the consideration of the Government the conclusions at which they have arrived, and the Government will give the recommendations of the Committee the most careful and detailed examination. No advantage will be gained by the discussion of the Report by the House at this stage, nor, as my hon. friend must see, would there be any time for such a discussion this session.

      Blocking Motions.
      SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he contemplates securing the assent of the House this session to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Anticipatory Motions, which enlist the sympathy of all sections of the House.
      SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That must depend entirely upon the feeling of the House. Provided we can come to an agreement on the matter unanimously and without discussion, I see no reason why a Standing Order giving effect to the recommendation of the Select Committee should not be adopted.
      LORD R. CECIL: What steps does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take in order to arrive at an agreement?
      SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The usual steps. I do not think there will be much difficulty about that.
      MR. R. DUNCAN: Do not the usual steps consist of standing still?
      SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That is sometimes the wisest thing to do.
      MR. BOWLES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as a matter of fact, he intends to take any steps in order to arrive at an agreement?
      SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think the hon. Member ought to ask me that.

      Public Accounts Committee.
      MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he can state when the discussion of the Reports presented by the Public Accounts Committee will be taken.
      SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot yet say. I am afraid it will be in the last days of the session.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked if the Prime Minister could so re-arrange the business of the House for Tuesday that the motion for the proposed grant to Lord Cromer might be taken as the first Order of the day. He believed it was without precedent that a motion of great importance, brought forward in consequence of a Royal message, should be taken otherwise than as the first Order. There would be a corresponding Motion in the House of Lords, and as the Finance Bill was assumed to have precedence over all other Bills he was afraid it must come first in the exceptional circumstances.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANdid not think he could depart from the arrangement which had been arrived at. There would be a corresponding Motion relating to Lord Cromer's grant in the
  500
  House of Lords, and therefore the Government could not postpone the Motion in the Commons. The Finance Bill was assumed to take precedence of all other measures, and he was afraid it must be taken first on Tuesday.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked at what hour the Motion was likely to be reached.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANdid not think the discussion on the Finance Bill would take very long, and therefore the Motion should be reached at an early period of the evening.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked whether, as the grant to Lord Cromer was a money matter, the Motion concurring in the grant should not be deferred in the House of Lords until the House of Commons had come to a decision on the question. This was done in the case of the grant to Lord Kitchener in 1899.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is exceeding the limits of a Question.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Then, may I address the Question to you, Sir?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have no control over the House of Lords.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANpointed out that the Government were following the practice pursued in former cases.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: But in the case of the Kitchener Grant the Lords' Motion was deferred for three days by Lord Salisbury on the ground that the Commons must take the initiative.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 276.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 276.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 293.]

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEE).
  SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURBONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: MR. Dolan.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGmoved that the Bill be re-committed to a Select Committee. A great deal more evidence and information was, he said, necessary before the House could agree to pass the measure. They had already finished the Committee Stage of the Bill, and so far as he could gather from what passed during the discussion, the only argument the Government could put forward was that of urgency. That might or might not be a good argument, but he wished to complain strongly of the very small amount of evidence the Government had brought forward in defence of the Bill. The reason for the Bill seemed an entirely sentimental one on the part of the Irish Secretary who, having failed to pass the Irish Council Bill, was determined to pass some sort of Irish measure this session. However that might be, the House was most certainly entitled to more information than that which had been afforded either by the report of the Estates Commissioners or by the Attorney-General and the Irish Secretary. In the first place they ought to know how these 2,000 tenants were made up. They were led to understand that in 1903 only 600 to 800 tenants were to be provided for. Now they were told that the number had increased to 2,000. They had been refused point blank any particulars with regard to the list. The Irish Secretary had urged that such information would entail a great deal of work upon the Estates Commissioners, but his reply to that was that all the information was at present in the Estates Commissioners office in tabulated form, and that all that was needed was to present it to the House
  502
  in the form of a Parliamentary Paper. They also required that they should have further information as to the methods to be adopted by the Estates Commissioners in settling the price to be paid per acre for the farms which they acquired compulsorily. There was also an important question as to how the grass-lands to be acquired were to be valued. Two possible views had been indicated, one that the landlord who was compelled to sell his grasslands should receive for them at least the full market value, and the other that the price should be what they would fetch if subject to a judicial rent. Where the grass-lands were subject to a judicial rent they would fetch 20s., 25s., and at the outside 30s. an acre, whereas when let on the eleven months system they were worth £2 to £4 an acre. That meant a great difference to the landlord, and it was a point upon which they should have some definite information. There was nothing laid down in the Bill as to the way in which these lands were to be valued. There ought to be more information than had been supplied as to the disparity between the number of tenants to be reinstated and the number they all thought would have to be reinstated to clear up the matter. Information was also required showing that the Commissioners had really used all the powers they possessed to acquire land voluntarily before they resorted to compulsion. He claimed that their Report did not show that. There was a bald statement that so many acres would be required for the purposes of the Act, and also that application made to a certain number of landlords had not produced up to the present any very great effect.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether the hon. Member was in order in speaking on the merits of the Bill, the real question being whether it should be recommitted to a Select Committee.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid he gathered that the argument of the hon. Member was that before the House debated the Bill further it required further information, and that that information could only be obtained by sending it to a Select Committee which could call evidence. That was the only line of argument open to the hon. Member, and he must confine himself to that.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he thought he had been doing that. He was trying to show that it would be beneficial to the House to have evidence from the Commissioners and other persons to show that all efforts had been made to acquire the land necessary to carry out the Act. It was stated in the Report that the Commissioners had been able to acquire 80,000 acres for the purpose of reinstating tenants, and in the view of the Committee on Congestion it was required for that purpose. It was a point on which the House of Commons should ask for information whether the urgency of this evicted tenants question was not such that the 80,000 acres already acquired was not sufficient for the purpose. He submitted that no urgency had been shown for the Bill, and that before urgency could be accepted as the reason for it the House should have evidence from other persons besides the Chief Secretary. The Commissioners themselves and their innumerable inspectors engaged in the work could give very valuable information in that respect. The Chief Secretary's arguments had been entirely confined to the urgency of the measure. The proper way, therefore, was to recommit the Bill to a Select Committee who could examine not only the Commissioners and inspectors, evicted tenants and landlords in the West of Ireland, but generally the numerous persons who might be in many respects adversely affected by the Bill.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid that if ever there was an occasion on which a Bill should be recommitted the present was one. There never was a Bill so gagged as this one had been or where discussion had been so stifled. He thought he was correct in saying that only three clauses had been discussed, and he was quite sure that the Chief Secretary would admit there had been absolutely no obstruction but simply a desire to debate points and assist the Government. His hon. friend was fully justified in saying that this was one of the most revolutionary measures ever brought into the House. The fact that there had been practically no discussion whatever showed there was all the more need for re-examination before these unhappy people who had been in some cases more than a quarter of a century in their farms were turned out to make way for
  504
  other tenants. There was nothing in the Bill to show what tribunal would carry out these evictions, and the fact that a number of men were coming from America and Australia, in fact from the ends of the earth, to claim possession of these farms which had been in possession of their present tenants in some cases for a quarter of a century, showed distinctly that there ought to be a very clear discussion as to what this tribunal should be, and a more thorough examination of the measure. The Bill would sow discord and, he believed, paralyse the agricultural industry by hanging an uncertain fate over the unfortunate present tenants, and that was an important reason why that and so many other important points should receive fuller discussion. He accordingly seconded the Motion for recommittal.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be recommitted to a Select Committee."—(Mr. Charles Craig.)
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell, Bristol, N.)said it was conceivable that there might be occasions when it would be proper on the Report Stage to move that a Bill should be recommitted to a Select Committee, but he submitted that the present was not such an occasion. The effect of carrying the motion would be clearly dilatory. The hon. Member had said there was no urgency for this Bill. How far he was in order in saying that he was not sure. It had been further stated that the Bill was brought forward for the purpose of soothing his wounded pride because of the unfavourable reception which the Irish Council Bill received at the hands of the Irish representatives. Anyone who knew the circumstances would know that the Bill was brought in on account of a distinct pledge given before the Council Bill was introduced. He obtained permission from the Treasury to increase the staff of inspectors for the very purpose of being able to form something like a definite opinion as to the number of evicted tenants who would require to be dealt with. Accordingly as soon as that work was done, this Bill became an absolute necessity, a fulfilment of a definite Parliamentary pledge given by himself, and also by his right hon. friend who preceded him in office. Therefore, there was no association whatever between

  505
  the introduction of this Bill and the reception given to the Irish Council Bill. This Bill would have been introduced even if the Irish Council Bill had not been introduced, or if, having been introduced, it had been proceeded with. The hon. Member had said that he wanted more information, but he would surely admit that the question had been argued and re-argued whether the number of evicted tenants was 2,000 more or less. They had dealt with that until he was nearly tired of giving the information, though he might not have satisfied the hon. Member's mind. In regard to another point, the hon. Member had said that there was a difference in the price per acre according as the land was used for one purpose or another. That might be a good ground for an Amendment to be introduced into the Bill, but it was no ground for its recommital to a Select Committee. Another point stated by the hon. Member was that there was no evidence before the House that the Estates Commissioners had taken all the steps they could to acquire land for the purpose of reinstating the evicted tenants without compulsion at all. It had been suggested that it might be sufficient if they wore allowed to acquire the land voluntarily. He submitted that that was a matter which the Government must take the responsibility of deciding upon. He had no desire to say that all the Commissioners were agreed on this point. He understood that Mr. Commissioner Wrench, for example, was of opinion that compulsory powers were not necessary. He did not, and never had, based himself on the evidence or the Report of the Commissioners. The Government was satisfied that this question had stood over long enough, and that unless steps were taken to enable the Estates Commissioners, or other persons who might be entrusted with the job, to acquire land in a short space of time, by compulsion if necessary, the question would hang fire for the next five or six years as it had hung fire in the past. He did not know what the Second Reading of a Bill was for if it was not to determine questions of that sort. The House of Commons determined on the Second Reading that that was not an unreasonable thing to be demanded. To ask that on the Report stage the Bill should be recommitted, or, in other words, that their labour was to be thrown away,
  506
  was playing with the House. The hon. Member for North Down had said the Bill had not been properly discussed in Committee. He quite agreed that it had not been properly discussed, but whose fault was that? If they were going to say that they would never discuss properly a Bill put through by closure by compartments, if the Opposition said the House was insulted by closure by compartment, then of course they understood one another.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid that after the first day the right hon. Gentleman would admit that there had been no obstruction.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid he was quite prepared to leave that to the sense of the House. If after the first day the Bill could have been dealt with in the course of three or four days, then he agreed that closure by compartments would have been quite unnecessary. The Government might have been mistaken in the spirit with which the Bill had been received, but they considered that they had given ample time for the discussion of every important clause. He quite agreed that as it turned out some of the clauses had not been sufficiently discussed, but if they could not discuss a Bill of this sort in three days then there was an end to all Parliamentary discussion. If they had not had ample time to discuss the Bill in Committee, that was all the more reason why they should not waste any further time in dilatory motions.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that when the right hon. Gentleman accused his friend behind him of pursuing dilatory tactics he came perilously near coming under his own condemnation, because everybody knew that if the Irish Council Bill had been proceeded with there would have been no time for the discussion of this or any other measure unless the House had sat till Christmas. The right hon. Gentleman must have been speaking in a vein of sarcasm when he talked about the House coming to the conclusion that the tactics of his hon. friends behind him were of an obstructive character. The right hon. Gentleman knew that the House consisted of the Unionist and Nationalist Members from Ireland, himself and one of his colleagues, and two other hon. Members. That was the jury

  507
  by whom the tactics of the Unionists were to be tried—that was to say they were to be tried by their political opponents.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid there were not many of his political opponents present. The opposition was almost entirely from two or three hon. Gentleman opposite.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that that was a fair proportion. The right hon. Gentleman had declared the Motion to be one which ought not to have been made, and had asked how it could have been made after the Second Reading, on which the principles of the Bill had been accepted. The Chief Secretary apparently entirely ignored the fact that some of the Amendments proposed by the Opposition during the Committee stage would have had a safeguarding or limiting effect on the Bill. He did not expect that his opponents would agree that some of those Amendments were absolutely fair and reasonable and ought to have been accepted by the Government if they really meant what they said as to the way in which the Bill was to be carried out. If the right hon. Gentleman had accepted the Amendment limiting the powers of the Estates Commissioners and the time during which they were to be exercised, there would not have been a necessity for a Motion of this kind. Some fuller evidence, he contended, ought to be given to the House as to the principles on which the Bill was to be applied. Whatever information the right hon. Gentleman had, he had never condescended to give it to the House. The principles referred to by his hon. friend were as to buying land worth £3 or £4 an acre at a price of £1 an acre. He did not wonder that his hon. friend had made that Motion. As to the reference to the time taken up for discussion, if there had been any attempt to repeat the points on which they had raised discussion, not on the principle of the Bill, but merely on the limitation, there would have been some grounds for complaint. As it was he submitted there were no good grounds for such complaints on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. His contention was there was no justification for powers so drastic to be given to the Estates Commissioners. If that was in order to do what the Government
  508
  wished, namely, to reinstate a sufficient number of evicted tenants, that could have been done with a much more moderate measure than the present one.
  MR. T. M. HEALYdesired to leave it on record as an historic fact that in the long course of years in which the Irish Party had been necessarily in antagonism to the Tory Party, and even to the Liberal Party, no Motion of this kind had over been made by the Nationalists on the Report stage of any Bill. They were opposed to the Arms Bill and all the Coercion Bills passed by that House, but they had never made a dilatory Motion of this kind. He believed that it had been made by another Party once within thirty years. He thought that it was of some importance as justifying the respect shown to Parliamentary forms and the position of the House by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway to state that no Motion parallel to this had ever been made by them.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYwished to support the Motion for reasons which he thought were reasonable and strong.
  *MR. LEIF JONES,on a point of order, asked what, seeing that the House had decided to finish the Report stage that evening, would be the position of the House if this Motion was carried. Would they have the moans of compelling the Select Committee to make their Report that day so that the Report stage might be taken at 10.30, as the House had already determined on the Motion of the Prime Minister?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid it was obvious that if the Motion was carried there was an end of the Bill for this session. He could not help Motions being made; several might be made which would put an end to the Bill. He could not object to a Motion when it had been moved.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid that it had been made pretty clear that the action for closuring discussion of the Bill by compartments had been taken for the convenience of the Government. It was necessary to assist the Government in carrying out their programme.

  509
  The Chief Secretary surely did not expect the Opposition to have much sympathy with that line of argument. The right hon. Gentle man knew that his Bill was hanging fire. It ought to hang fire a good deal longer; and the right hon. Gentle man could not expect Members on that side of the House to sacrifice what they believed to be the cause of justice and fair play because the Bill was hanging fire. There ran through every line of the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman on almost every clause the suggestion that the House should take the Bill because he placed unlimited trust in the Estates Commissioners and that the Bill would be host administered by them. He was in direct conflict with the light hon. Gentleman. He did not trust the Estates Commissioners. This was not personal to the Commissioners them selves. He did not know and had never exchanged a word with any of them; and he did not impugn their sense of honour or their knowledge. He thought their position was absolutely impossible and they ought not to be in it. He knew quite well that the retort of the right hon. Gentleman would be that these gentlemen had been appointed by the late Government; but that did not preclude him from saying that that action was a mistake. The Commission ought to have been on the lines of the Charity Commission or of a Government Department, by whose action the Government would stand or fall. He believed that the constitution of the Commission was unconstitutional. In the second place he did not believe in the Commissioners or place any confidence in them, because of the language which they themselves had used in connection with some of the points in the Bill. That ought to be borne in mind when the House was putting the liberties, the property, and the amenities of life of the owners of that property absolutely under the heel of those gentlemen. He believed that there was a further intention on the part of the Government—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid he did not see how the observations of the right hon. Gentleman were pertinent to the Motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he wanted the Bill to be referred to a Select
  510
  Committee, which would take notice that the powers to be granted to the Estates Commissioners would be destructive of different classes of property, and put the owners under the heel of the Commissioners. He felt very strongly on this point. He had taken the trouble to read up what the Commissioners had said in regard to the way in which certain tenants had been treated, and he wished to show that these gentlemen were likely to do what was wrong.
  MR. SPEAKER:remarked that if the confidence of the right hon. Gentleman had been destroyed, he did not think there was any hope of its being restored by further examination of the subject by a Select Committee.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid his confidence might be restored by a future discussion. His distrust was, he thought, justified.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid the right hon. and gallant Member's remarks were not relevant to the Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee. The point the hon. Member was raising could be dealt with on a future day on another part of the Bill.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he wished frankly to lay before the House the reasons why he thought the Commissioners ought not to be entrusted with the carrying out of this Bill. That might not be the right season to raise the question, and if it was not, ho immediately gave way, but by the evidence which had been printed and made public, it appeared that the Commissioners had absolutely departed from the position they ought to have taken up.
  MR. SPEAKERdid not think the remarks of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman were relevant to the Motion before the House. He could attack the Commissioners at a later stage of the Bill.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he would in that case raise the question at the right time, and it would knock the bottom and substance out of the Bill, if

  511
  it was to be a measure of justice and was not brought forward merely to sustain the reputation of His Majesty's Government.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 51; Noes. 249. ("Division List No. 331.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, RtHn. SirAlex.F.

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Ashley, W. W.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Salter Arthur Clavell

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Fell, Arthur

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Balfour, RtHn. A. J.(CityLond.)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Smith,Abel H.(Hertford,East)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Baring, Capt. Hn.G (Winchester

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Valentia, Viscount

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Kenyon Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. VictorC.W.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Wyndham. Rt. Hon. George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Liddell, Henry

  Younger. George

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Charles Craig and Mr. Lonsdale.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Nield, Herbert

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Parker. SirGilbert (Gravesend)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  NOES,

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cooper, G. J.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Alden, Percy

  Corbett, C.H(Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hayden, John Patrick.

  Asquith, Rt.HonHerbertHenry

  Cox., Harold

  Hazleton, Richard

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Crean. Eugene

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Crombie, John William

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Barker, John

  Crooks, William

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Barlow, Prcy (Bedford)

  Crossley, William J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Hodge, John

  Barry. Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Curran. Peter Francis

  Hogan, Michael

  Beauchamp. E.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Horniman. Emslie John

  Bell, Richard

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Dewar, Sir J. A.(Inderness-sh.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Bethell, SirJ.H.(Essex,Romf'rd

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex,. Maldon)

  Duckworth. James

  Illingworth. Percy H.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Duffy, William J.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Black, Arthur W.

  Dunn. A. Edward (Camborne)

  Jenkins, J.

  Boland, John

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Boulton. A. C F.

  Elibank, Master of

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Jones. Leif (Appleby)

  Branch. James

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Brigg. John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jowett, F. W.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Joyce, Michael

  Brunner, J. F. L.(Lanes., Leigh)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Brunner, RtHnSir J. T.(Cheshire

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Kennedy. Vincent Paul

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Kilbride, Denis

  Burt. Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Fowler. Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Laidlaw. Robert

  Byles, William Pollard

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lambert, (George

  Cameron. Robert

  Gardner, Col. Alan(Hereford, S.)

  Lamont. Norman

  Campbell-Bannerman. Sir H.

  Gilhooly, James

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn.HerbertJohn

  Law. Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Lea, HughCecil(St.Pancras,E.)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Grant, Corrie

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lehmann. R. C.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Gulland, John W.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Cleland, J. W.

  Gurdon, RtHn.SirW.Brampton

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Clough, William

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Clynes. J. R.

  Halpin, J.

  Lough. Thomas

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hammond, John

  Lundon, W,

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  O'Shee, James John

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Snowden, P.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Partington, Oswald

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Macdonald, J. M.(FalkirkB'ghs

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Mackarness. Frederic C.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Pikersgill, Edward Hare

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Mac Veigh, Charles)Donegal, E.)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central

  Tennant, SirEdward (Salisbury)

  M'Killop, W.

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Thorne, William

  Maddison, Frederick

  Radford, G. H.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Marnham, F. J.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Ure, Alexander

  Massie, J.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Verney, F. W.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Meagher, Michael

  Reddy, M.

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wardle, George J.

  Menzies, Walter

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Waring, Walter

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Rees, J. D.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wason, JohnCathcart (Orkney)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradfrd

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Rose, Charles Day

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Murnaghan, George

  Runciman, Walter

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Murphy, John

  Russell, T. W.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Murray, James

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Myer, Horatio

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Wilson, Henry J.)York, W.R.)

  Napier, T. B.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh., N.)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Sears, J. E.

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Winfrey, R.

  O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

  Seddon, J.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Seely, Major J. B.

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  O'Grady, J.

  Sheehy, David

  O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  O'Malley, William

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  MR. O'SHEEmoved a new clause giving the Estates Commissioners power to acquire land subject to an annuity by agreement. He explained that he had been induced to leave out words which would refer back to the Irish Land Act of 1903 as amended by this Bill, because he understood they would create difficulty in the way of Estates Commissioners getting rid of the now tenants, which it seemed would be necessary in order to restore the evicted tenants in every case. The evicted tenants were now said to amount to 2,000 in number, and it seemed that under this provision it would be necessary to get rid of the now tenant in every case. In some cases no doubt it would be difficult to do so, but if this clause was enacted the Estates Commissioners would be very easily able to get lands upon an estate in the neighbourhood for the evicted tenants and provide them with new farms. For these easons he thought he should have
  514
  the support of hon. Members above the gangway. Hon. Members ought to view this clause with considerable favour, because if the annuity for the redemption of the farm had been paid up for fifteen or sixteen years it could be acquired more cheaply than on terms which could be procured now. It would enable the Estates Commissioners to deal more generously with new tenants and also with the evicted tenants. There was no available untenanted land throughout the length and breadth of the counties of Waterford, Cork, or Tipperary to provide for the evicted tenants unless they evicted the new tenants in every case. The men, however, when offered better farms in county Meath preferred to stick to their own county. They preferred a farm on the mountains and highlands of Waterford rather than one on the plains of Meath. If a part of the annuity had been paid off be did not see why they should not save the Treasury money.
  MR. POWERseconded, and urged the difficulty of securing lands in localities suitable for evicted tenants. He need hardly point to the difficulty of securing untenanted land unless some provision of this sort was made. It was very great, and from the Treasury point of view he thought some inexpensive way under which the land could be acquired should be devised. It was impossible to acquire untenanted land without a large expenditure as to buildings being entered upon, but under the Amendment, if an inspector was sent down to look after the buildings and found them suitable to the farm, a good deal of trouble and expense would be avoided. His hon. friends around him had not the least desire that the Estates Commissioners should come into competition with those who might put up the prices. If their inspector had visited a farm, and that farm could be obtained at a reasonable price, what they said was that it would be judicious and wise that the Commissioners should acquire it. In his own parish there was a farm with excellent buildings which could be obtained and would be suit able for the evicted tenants; and there were three other farms which could also be acquired. It would be deplorable if the chance of obtaining those farms was allowed to slip, and the evicted tenants had to be sent at greater expense to some other county. Technicalities stood in the way which it was the object of this proposed clause to remove, and if it were adopted the Estates Commissioners must be prepared to have as little red-tape in the transaction as possible, because the men who were prepared to sell their farms wanted the money almost immediately. Some of them were gentlemen farmers who found that farming involved a loss; one other case which he had in his mind was that of an old and feeble man who was anxious to get rid of his holding at a reasonable figure. If this proposal were adopted, and the money for the farms were not paid as soon as possible, land grabbers with their money ready would try to get those places which were so desirable for the evicted tenants. Some of the planters, who knew very little about farming, and who were now liable for instalments, were prepared to give up their farms upon reasonable conditions, and he sincerely hoped that the Government would not lose this opportunity of dealing with the
  516
  matter in the cheapest way. There was no compulsion in the clause; it was merely to enable the Commissioners, if, through their inspectors, they learned that certain farms were available at prices which represented their value, to give those sums. In several cases the Commissioners had reported that land was for sale on terms which gave ample value, but owing to technicalities which stood in the way the Commissioners were incompetent to acquire the land except by a process which was unsuitable and expensive to the people concerned. He hoped the case they had made out would commend itself to the Government and the Treasury, because so far from its involving additional cost it would be very much cheaper for the land to be acquired in the way suggested than by the more expensive process.
  "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 9 of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, the Estates Commissioners may acquire by agreement, for the purposes of this Act, any land which is subject to an annnity under the Land Purchase Acts or the Irish Land Act of 1903, and they may create an additional annuity repayable out of such land provided that they are satisfied that the security for the repayment thereof is sufficient."
  Brought up and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid that if hon. Members on those benches thought that the proposed new section would be voluntary in its operation they would have no objection to it, but they did not take that view. So far as the wording of the section was concerned it was undoubtedly voluntary, but they had too much knowledge of what went on in Ireland to think that compulsory methods would not be employed quite outside the section. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment informed them that ever since the Act of 1903 he had done his best to get the evicted tenant reinstated on the farms from which they had been evicted, and would continue to do so. It was for that very reason that they had considerable doubts about such an Amendment as this, and would vote against it. In Galway

  517
  and Roscommon if land was purchased through the Commissioners by a tenant, then simply because the surrounding tenants for one reason or another thought it was too much, the United Irish League would call upon the owner of the farm to surrender it; exactly the same thing would happen under this clause. In Waterford and other counties precisely the same class of agitation had been started, and if this clause was included pressure would be brought to bear from all sides on these men by local branches of the United Irish League to surrender their holdings because the original holder ought to be reinstated. It was perfectly futile to tell the House that it was a voluntary provision. It would be easy for hon. Members in conjunction with the United Irish League to coerce these unfortunate men into leaving their farms.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the clause had no reference to planters who had bought their holdings.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he believed it would include planters, and he and his friends had the strongest objection to any further powers being given to the Estates Commissioners. They felt that pressure would be brought to bear on these people, and they would oppose the Amendment.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the; hon. Member for South Antrim was in some confusion as to the meaning of the clause. His whole speech was framed as if the Amendment was dealing with farms which had been taken by and subsequently sold to planters, and he had said that if they put in a clause of this kind pressure would be brought to bear on the planters to sell their farms. The clause did not apply to them at all. It was a general clause, and its natural operation had been going on ever since land purchase was started. Men who had purchased their farms and had not completed their annuities for some reason or other wished to sell their farms, which came into the open market. The clause simply provided that the Estates Commissioners might come in and buy such farms for the purpose of this Bill.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid the hon. Member for West Waterford had said that in 279 cases of applications no less than ninety were cases of planters.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND.said he had not understood him to say anything of the kind. But if he had how was that any answer to his point? If any ordinary tenant purchasers in Waterford desired to sell, why should the Estates Commissioners be precluded from going into the open market and buying that farm for the purpose of this Bill? All that his hon. friend said about the tenants in Waterford was that there was no un-tenanted land to be obtained there, and that unless compulsory powers were put in the Bill none of the evicted tenants could get back. This clause would provide a voluntary means to some extent of providing land for those men. It was extremely hard to please hon. Members above the gangway. When a compulsory clause was asked for they were up in arms, and when a voluntary clause was proposed they said they would vote against it. The only possible explanation of that attitude was that these Members did not want the question settled at all. If they wanted the question settled, and objected to compulsion, why did they not vote for this clause? Their attitude was entirely inconsistent, and he hoped the House would take notice of it. He sincerely hoped the Attorney-General would accept the clause? He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to accept it. He might say it was a matter for the Treasury, but that was no answer. If it was an answer, where were the Treasury officials? The clause had been on the Paper for some days, and if it was a matter for the Treasury they ought to be present to explain their objections. He could not imagine what objection the Treasury would have to the clause, because its effect would be undoubtedly to save money for the State without any risk. Fie hoped the Attorney-General would give the House his opinion on the merits of the clause.
  MR. CULLINANsaid it was unfortunate that this provision which his hon. friend now proposed was not inserted in the Act of 1903, for it would have saved a considerable amount to the British taxpayer. He was personally aware of cases in which planters had been most willing and anxious to

  519
  sell, and their holdings could have been obtained for comparatively small sums, for the purpose of restoring the evicted tenants. But the Commissioners were unable to deal with them, and in some cases they had supplied land to the evicted tenants and had spent large sums on buildings and equipments, with considerable loss to the Treasury. He was afraid that owing to the puffing of these planters by hon. Members above the gangway the Estates Commissioners would find that the price of their land had gone up; still, even under those circumstances, he thought his hon. friend's proposal would be a considerable gain to the Treasury.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY, Liverpool, Exchange)said he was fully in sympathy with the arguments used by hon. Members below the gangway on this point. There was a great deal to be said in favour of voluntary purchase, but when the matter was considered carefully he did not think hon. Members would be inclined to press this Amendment. There was a financial objection to the proposal which could not be got over. This was an Irish question and meant the loss of money to Ireland. The security for the advances under the Act of 1891 was carefully provided for by Section 9, which laid down that in no case was an additional advance to be made for the purchase of a holding until the whole of the previous advance had been repaid. That provision had been rigorously applied to all sales and it was absolutely necessary to maintain it in its entirety. This Amendment would enable the Estates Commissioners to create an additional annuity. He understood that the hon. Member's proposal was that the State should make the advance for the purchase not only of the landlords' interest, but also the interest of the tenant. The advances were purely to purchase the landlords' interest.
  MR. O'SHEEsaid the Attorney-General was absolutely wrong. When they were acquiring untenanted land at a certain price to the landlord and the evicted tenant came in as well, they added that to the price they gave the landlord and made out an annuity for the whole amount.
  MR. CHERRYsaid he was not aware of that, but what the hon. Member said as regarded untenanted land had nothing to do with the matter, because it was in quite a different position. The Amendment really proposed to charge a fresh annuity, and thus they would start with two annuities instead of one. That was a transaction which they could not accept.
  MR. KILBRIDEsaid it was rather curious that the Attorney-General did not yet know the powers of the Estates Commissioners. Apparently he was absolutely ignorant of the everyday procedure of those Commissioners when dealing with evicted tenants. It was a notorious fact known to everybody who had had anything to do with the reinstatement of evicted tenants that where the Estates Commissioners purchased untenanted land for the purpose of reinstating tenants they made a loan and also a free grant to the tenant who was to be put on to the holding. The free grant, of course, carried no interest or percentage, but if they advanced £500 to the evicted tenants they would give him £200 as a free grant and £300 as a loan. Of course the loan would be added to the purchase money which they paid to the landlord, and if the price to be paid to the landlord was £1,000 and the free grant was £300 the tenant would be charged interest upon £1,300. That transaction appeared to be new to the Attorney-General who had stated that the Estates Commissioners had no power whatever to make any arrangement by which the Treasury were to receive an annuity which would exceed 3¼ per cent. on the amount they had paid for the untenanted land.
  MR. CHERRYsaid he did not state anything of the kind. What he said was that the Estates Commissioners had no power to charge a second annuity on land which was at present liable to an annuity.
  MR. KILBRIDEsaid the Attorney-General stated that under the Act of 1891 it was necessary that the outstanding loan should be paid off before that particular farm could be dealt with. He could not see where the Treasury was going to lose by advancing the Estates Commissioners sufficient money to pay off the outstanding loans in view of the fact that if they paid off

  521
  the loans they could charge that sum or even a larger sum to the evicted tenants. This seemed to him to be an unreasonable difficulty which had been thrown in the way in order to pre vent the Chief Secretary finally settling the question. It had been stated that the proposal affected Irish finance, but he would remind the House that those who represented Irish taxpayers in the proportion of about four to one as compared with hon. Gentlemen above the gangway, were quits satisfied that the Irish taxpayers were ready to take the risk. If the Chief Secretary desired to settle the question, he did not see why he should not adopt the clause. The right hon. Gentleman had already stated that in dealing with bona fide farmers the compulsory powers of the Bill would not be put into operation. He did not see how the right hon. Gentleman could deal effectively with the question unless the present proposal or something similar was adopted. Every bit of untenanted land across the Shannon was required to increase the size of the present holdings. He did not think the British taxpayers would ever have consented to pledge British credit for £100,000,000 if they had not firmly believed that the object was to get rid once for all of the Irish land trouble and the evicted tenants question. He had no doubt that the Unionist Party wished to get back into office as quickly as possible, and naturally they had no overweening desire that the evicted tenants question should be settled, because they believed that they could continue to make political capital out of the unrest of the people of Ireland. There was nothing objectionable in principle to the proposal of the hon. Member for West Waterford. If the Chief Secretary did not accept the new clause, he might find that the evicted tenants question would remain an open sore, and that he would not be able to say at an early date that he had finally and satisfactorily dealt with the Irish land question. He wished to ask hon. Members in all parts of the House whether they desired to have the Irish land question removed from the purview of that House. Did they wish to have it settled, and to let the House get on to other business? If English and Scottish Members did not settle the evicted tenants question now, as they would by this proposal finally and satisfac-
  522
  torily, it would still continue to block the way of social reform in this country.
  MR. DUFFYsaid he did not think the Attorney-General realised the importance of this matter.
  MR. CHERRYsaid he quite realised its importance.
  MR. DUFFYthought that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman realised fully the seriousness of the matter, he would accept the new clause. He wished to direct attention to certain cases in the West of Ireland. A short time ago, acting on behalf of tenant occupiers, he brought under the notice of the Estates Commissioners the advisability of taking over from them certain lands. While mediating in the matter he learned that the Estates Commissioners had no power to take over the lands, although the tenant occupiers were willing that they should do so, and that thereby the transfer of the lands to the evicted tenants should be facilitated. The proposal of his hon. friend was that wherever a tenant was willing to part with his interest in a holding the Estates Commissioners should have power to step in and buy the interest in order that the holding might be transferred to an evicted tenant. The Estates Commissioners were at present acquiring land in the West of Ireland. He supposed that was being done in the interest of the evicted tenants. He knew that, speaking so far as the West if Ireland was concerned, the Estates Commissioners in acquiring land had paid more to the landlords for it than they would have had to pay to the tenants who were willing to sell out. Why should the Government interpose difficulties in the way of willing tenants selling to the Estates Commissioners in order that the holdings might be transferred to the evicted tenants? By doing so they were only creating fresh trouble. He appealed to the Chief Secretary to try to clothe the Estates Commissioners with sufficient power to enable them to take over these lands.
  MR. FLAVINsaid he understood that this was purely a question of finance. Where tenanted land was acquired the purchase price was usually two or three years purchase more than in

  523
  the case of untenanted land. But if land which was derelict was bought, cattle and other stock had to be supplied, and out-houses had to be built, the result being that, in addition to twenty-three or twenty-four years purchase, there was an outlay of £300 or £000 for equipment. The effect of that was to make the annuity very high. On the other hand, if they bought tenanted land, they got it fully equipped for the incoming tenant, and therefore the annuity would be in many cases less than when untenanted land was bought. There was an opinion in Ireland that evicted tenants should not be sent from one county to another if land could be provided for them in their own county. If the Party to which he belonged wished to keep the agrarian question alive in Ireland they would not vote for this new clause. By voting against it they would vote for what they did not desire, namely, the continuation of the agrarian war. In the interest of all parties in Ireland, and of the Conservative and Liberal Parties in this country, they wanted to have an honest and amicable settlement of the evicted tenants question. As far as the ratepayers were concerned—and he could speak for Conservatives as well as Nationalists in Kerry—the universal wish was to have the question closed, and if there was to be any extra taxation for that purpose they were ready to meet it. He denied, however, that there would be any necessity for additional taxation. He knew several cases where tenants were willing to sell fully-equipped farms at a small price to the Estates Commissioners in order that evicted tenants might be reinstated. There would be no compulsion on the Estates Commissioners to buy in such cases. He would be one of the first to oppose a mandatory clause. This was a purely optional clause giving discretionary power to the Estates Commissioners. The Irish ratepayers were responsible to the British Treasury for every single penny, and he thought no difficulties would arise, financial or otherwise, from the acceptance of the clause. It would be in the interest of all parties concerned to try to keep the evicted tenants in their own districts.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid they were all quite alive to the great difficulty in the way of any Government which sought to acquire
  524
  the necessary land to reinstate tenants in their old holdings or to find other holdings for them. Hon. Members would see that this measure was necessarily composed under certain final restrictions, and one of the restrictions in the minds of those responsible for framing it was that nothing should be done in any way to interfere with the confidence in, or the system of, the Land Purchase Acts. He agreed that the financial burden cast on the tenant purchaser was sufficiently great already to cause, he would not say alarm, but a reasonable amount of anxiety, and a determination that these purchase annuities should not be made larger than they now were. The Government did not wish to interfere with the operation of the land purchase measures, and therefore they had excluded from the powers of the Estates Commissioners the power of acquiring compulsorily land which had been already made the subject-matter of purchase annuity. It was true that this was a voluntary provision, but the Estates Commissioners had power to take land compulsorily; and were such a power placed within the control of all the parties it might give rise to a feeling of lack of confidence in the measure, leading to pressure being put on persons to part with land for the purpose of reinstating the evicted tenants. It was not desirable, therefore, to extend the area of that confusion. The House also could not leave aside the Treasury in this matter, and say that it was a question wholly for the Irish ratepayers. The Treasury question was one of grave importance. The annuities were already sufficiently high, and he contemplated with alarm the idea of adding another annuity on the land itself. The Government could not accept the new clause.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he would not have taken part in the debate had it not been for the suggestion made from below the gangway that the attitude of the Opposition towards the evicted tenants was one of genuine hostility, and that their opposition to the Amendment before the House was a justification of that view. He thought that hon. Gentlemen below the gangway would be forced to admit that their attitude towards the Amendment was the same as that of the Government. If the proposal embraced in the Amendment had been made under normal conditions it would not have been so

  525
  much objected to. But there was a dominant power already to superimpose annuities on the land which, in one respect, was a tenant's affair rather than a landlord's. The Amendment would raise a financial difficulty, which the Government could not accept. If it were certain that they could confine the operation of the clause to purely voluntary cases, there might be something to be said in favour of including the clause in the Bill; but the Chief Secretary had pointed out that one of the reasons why it could not be accepted was because its acceptance might lead to the use of undue pressure on the occupying tenant. [Cries of "No," from the Irish benches.] He hoped not, but undoubtedly where a tenant was occupying land which was wanted for a particular purpose very great pressure would be put upon him. He was not raising this as a question for which anybody was to be blamed, but there was a reserve of pressure on the man who came in on what was nominally a voluntary bargain, but which was not really a voluntary bargain. The Chief Secretary had commented somewhat sarcastically upon their opposition to the Amendment; but they wore learning now from these who were bringing evidence from different localities what were the real difficulties in the settlement of the question. The Chief Secretary had told them on the Motion for the re-committal of the Bill that no further information was required, but the right hon. Gentleman had to admit that it had been pressed upon him from below the gangway that this was not a final settlement of the question. It was well that those home truths should be brought home to the Government. These facts would not interfere with the action of the Opposition, but they would go to show that this was not a fully considered measure. If the Government went to a division in refusing to accept the clause the Opposition would support them.
  *MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid he wished to bring under the notice of the House a case in his own constituency, where the tenant purchased his holding previous to the Act of 1903. After a few years the tenant was unable to pay the purchase annuity, and consequently he was evicted. Previous to his eviction the landlord sold the guarantee deposit to a gentleman in Dublin, and
  526
  when the tenant was evicted the gentleman from Dublin took up the land and had farmed it ever since. He was informed that since the passing of the Land Purchase Act of 1903, the Dublin gentleman was quite willing to sell the land to the Estates Commissioners in order that they might reinstate the two sons of the former tenant, who had died. But, owing to the Treasury difficulty, the Estates Commissioners could not purchase the farm. If the Chief Secretary accepted this clause it would meet the difficulty, for the farm was practically boycotted, and the two boys would be reinstated in the home from which their father had been evicted.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that the case quoted by the hon. Gentleman was of great importance. Under the old system evicted farms were taken up as speculative investments when there was some default in the payment of the annuities. But when the speculators found that there was great local feeling they at once offered to give back the farms if the Land Commissioners would give their sanction. The Government ought to find some means of dealing with the case mentioned by the hon. Member for West Limerick. A man had been saddled with an estate in Limerick which he did not want, and he had offered the evicted tenant to give him back the land if the Land Commission would give their sanction to the transfer, but the Land Commission refused to accept back the old evicted tenant on the ground that it had not power to regulate the transaction. In the name of common-sense why should not some modification be made in the section? He was greatly afraid there was some force in what was said by the hon. Member for South Dublin, and that there would be some cases of hardship still in existence after the passing of this Bill. Why not wipe the slate clean when they could by the acceptance of some such Amendment? It was extraordinary that every time a reasonable Amendment was moved the dead hand or live hand of the Treasury was lifted up against it. The House ought to be master of the Treasury. He remembered in 1886 they could not get clipboards because the Treasury would not go to the expense, but after years of agitation each of them got his cupboard and a key. All that was wanted was that someone should kick

  527
  the rascals who were in office—take those gentlemen and give them a thorough dressing. He had always considered the Irish office was more or less paralysed in its dealings with the Treasury. If they were not going to have Home Rule they ought to go back to the days when there was a Minister of Finance in Ireland. It was said that this farm was boycotted, and if so he must say it was most unjust
  to the gentleman who never sought the. farm but had it thrust on him by the Land Commission. Was it not absurd not to end this running sore and allow the Land Commission to take back the land?
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 244. (Division List No. 332.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Malley, William

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Shee, James John

  Boland, John

  Jowett, F. W.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Joyce, Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Reddy, M.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Richards,T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Crean, Eugene

  Lundon, W.

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Crooks, William

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Cullinan, J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Delany, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Sheehy, David

  Duffy, William J.

  MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)

  Snowden, P.

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Killop, W.

  Sutherland.,J. E.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Meagher, Michael

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Tennant, SirEdward(Salisbury

  Gilhooly, James

  Mooney, J. J.

  Thorne, William

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Murnaghan, George

  Wardle, George J.

  Halpin, J.

  Murphy, John

  White, Patrick (Meath. North)

  Hammond, John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Captain Donelan and Mr.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Patrick O'Brien.

  Hills, J. W.

  O'Grady, J.

  Hodge, John

  O'Kelly,James (Roscommon,N.

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Bethell, Sir J. H (Essex, Romf'rd

  Chance, Frederick William

  Acland-Hood, RtHn.SirAlex.F

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Alden, Percy

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cherry. Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Clough, William

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Branch, James

  Cochrane Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Asquith, Rt.Hn. Herbert Henry

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Brigg, John

  Corbett, C.H.(Sussex., E. Grinst'd

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down. North)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Brunner, RtHnSirJ. T. (Cheshire

  Cox, Harold

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Crombie, John William

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cameron, Robert

  Crossley, William J.

  Barker, John

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Barrie, H.T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Causton, Rt.HnRichardKnight

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

  Cave, George

  Dickinson, WH.(St Pancras. N.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Bell, Richard

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Duckworth, James

  Bellaire, Carlyon

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Bertram, Julius

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Elibank, Master of

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sears, J. E.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lough, Thomas

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Fell, Arthur

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Ferens, T. R.

  Macdonald, J. M.(FalkirkBg'hs)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  M'Callum, John M.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Fletcher., J. S.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton)

  Forster, Henry William

  Maddison, Frederick

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Fuller. John Michael F.

  Marnham, F. J

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Massie, J

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Menzies, Walter

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Gooch, George Peabody

  molteno, Percy Alport

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Grant, Corrie

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Taylor, Theodore C."(Radcliffe)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Thompson. J. W. H.(Somerset, E

  Gretton, John

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Toulmin, George

  Gulland, John W.

  Morpeth. Viscount

  Ure, Alexander

  Gurdon. Rt.Hn. SirW. Brampton

  Morrell, Philip

  Verney, F. W.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Murray, James

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Myer, Horatio

  Walker, Col. W. H.(Lancashire)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Napier, T. B.

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Newnes, F. (Notts., Bassetlaw)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Henderson. J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Nield, Herbert

  Waring, Walter

  Herbert. T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Hervey. F. W. F.(BuryS.Edm'ds

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Wason, Rt. Hn.E.(Clackmannan

  Higham, John Sharp

  Partington, Oswald

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Pollard, Dr.

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wiles, Thomas

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Price, C. E.(Edinb'gh,Central)

  Williamson, A.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Jenkins, J.

  Radford, G. H.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York,| W.R.)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Jones. Sir D Brynmor(Swansea)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh., N.)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Kearley. Hudson E.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Wolff. Gustav Wilhelm

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Wood. T..M'Kinnon

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Younger, George

  Lambert. George

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyueside)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Rowlands, J.

  Lamont. Norman

  Runciman, Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Lane-Fox. G. R.

  Russell, T. W.

  Whiteley and J. A. Pease.

  Layland- Barratt, Francis

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F)Accrington)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  *MR. ASHLEYsaid he wished to move a clause incorporating certain sections of the Lands Clauses Act of 1845. He believed he would have been more strictly in order if he had moved the incorporation of the clauses of the Railways (Ireland) Act, but as the two Acts were drawn on much the same lines, and as the right hon. Gentleman had thought fit to incorporate one or two clauses of
  530
  the Land Clauses Act in the Bill, he moved this new clause in order to have a discussion as to the means to be taken under the Bill to assess the amount of money which was to be paid for the land to be taken away from the landlord and new tenant. The sections he wished to incorporate were fifty-three, Suctions 15 to 68. They provided that the would-be purchaser who made an offer to the owner of the land should be

  531
  compelled to purchase just in the same way as the owner could be compelled to sell. That was a fair provision, because if the Land Commission came to close quarters with a landowner and made an offer and put him to trouble, it was only right that he should be in a position to compel them to continue the bargain. They also provided that where the value of the land sought to be taken exceeded £50 the two parties should agree on an arbitrator who should assess the value and the amount to be paid for the land to be taken compulsorily. If the two parties could not agree on an arbitrator, they each appointed an arbitrator, and the arbitrators appointed an umpire, and if that was not done and there was no arbitrator, the case was decided by a jury. They also provided for the payment of the costs of the arbitration. The tribunal it was proposed to set up in this Bill was only worthy of a comic opera. It was a tribunal that did everything itself. It judged the amount of land that it was to take, made an offer, and if the seller did not think that the offer was sufficient he was to have the right to appeal to the same tribunal. There was no justification for such a tribunal. In the Public Sites Act of 1903, and also in the Labourers Act passed last year, it was the arbitrator who fixed the price of the land which was taken, and why should the right hon. Gentleman now change the whole course of legislation by making in this case the people who were taking the land judges in their own cause? There was undoubtedly a great deal of distrust with regard to the Estates Commissioners on the part of Irish landowners owing to the way in which they had been treated in the past. He would, as an illustration, state a case within his own knowledge. A friend of his had an estate in the West of Ireland, and on that estate was a farm the tenants' interest in which had been bought out in order that accommodation land might be given to the other tenants. In February, 1905, his friend approached the Land Commissioners voluntarily, and asked them to buy this farm from him in order that the holdings of his tenants who had agreed to purchase them might be made economic. The Land Commissioners said they would consider the matter, and this gentleman did not get a valuation from them until December, 1906. The farm was 147 acres and the average net
  532
  rental was £145. The price his friend put upon it was twenty-five years purchase, which, capitalised at 4 per cent. gave him £145 a year. That could not be considered an excessive price having regard to the fact that the average price of such land in 1905–6 was twenty-nine years purchase, and that for the last six years the average price was twenty-seven. The Land Commissioners, after twenty-two months consideration, offered him fourteen years purchase, or £2,100, and said that if he would not accept that they would not declare his estate, which was going to be sold to the tenants, an estate under the Land Act. Under the Act of 1903 the landlord and tenant agreed, voluntarily, the number of years purchase the landlord was to receive for his land, and the arrangements for this estate were made in 1904, and for the Commissioners to come forward with this scandalous threat was a shameful proceeding. Of course his friend was obliged to accept the fourteen years purchase. He said nothing personally against the Estates Commissioners, but in view of the case he had just put to them could the House be surprised that there was considerable distrust, not to say dismay, on the part of the landowners of Ireland when they saw that the final appeal in regard to the price of the land to be taken from them or the new tenant was to be to the Commissioners? There was a precedent for the Government proposal, but they had to go back some thousands of years to the days of Ahab who coveted the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite. When his wife. Jezebel asked him—
  "'Why is thy spirit so sad that thou eatest no bread?' "
  he replied—
  "'I spoke unto Naboth the Jezreelite and said unto him, give me thy vineyard for money or else if it please thee I will give thee another vineyard for it; and he answered, I will not give thee I vineyard.'"
  Jezebel said to him—
  " 'Arise and eat bread and let thy heart be merry. I will give thee the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.' "
  They saw the hon. and learned Member for Waterford desiring the vineyards of the new tenants and the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary, like Jezebel, said—" I will give thee the vineyards of the new tenants. I will write a letter to the Estate Commissioners

  533
  and say 'got rid of these pestilent fellows who require so many police to look after them.'" The methods of the right hon. Gentleman no doubt were different from the methods of King Ahab, bat the end they aimed at was the same.
  *MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH,in seconding the Amendment, said the Public Sites Act had been spoken of, under which a Government Department acquired land, but they were not allowed to assess the land at the value they were willing to pay. There wore other Acts of more importance in which the House had not thought fit to entrust power to a Government Department compulsorily to acquire land and at the same time fix the price. Under the National Defence Acts tracts of land were acquired, and it might be said that land for the purposes of national defence ought to be acquired at a moderate price. But in that case Parliament had decided that the land was to be acquired under the Lands Clauses Act, and that the full market value was to be paid and independently assessed. This Bill, however, for the first time proposed that the purchaser should fix the price. Many people in Ireland must be reminded, when they considered the Government proposal, of the famous character in the Rebellion, who was not only judge and jury, but who also took advantage of his great stature to hang the prisoners as well. The Estates Commissioners would be put in that position, and, as a lawyer, he confessed he shared the apprehensions of his hon. friend behind him that the Estates Commissioners might not do justice. The Estates Commissioners had used their power of declaring land not to be "an estate" as a means of bringing pressure to bear on the owners to sell at a price which was not adequate. A man might have land in hand, unlet, which was producing a good income, and he was willing to sell it. He agreed with his tenants to sell his tenanted land at a price mutually satisfactory, but when the estate went to the Commissioners they submitted an offer for the lands in hand which the owner considered to be wholly inadequate and which he refused to take. In nearly every instance where the price of the tenanted land had been agreed upon the Estates Commissioners used their power to compel the landlord to sell his untenanted
  534
  land at a price which he considered inadequate. That had been the system put in operation all over Ireland in connection with the acquisition of the untenanted lands. Ho would be very glad indeed, even at some sacrifice of principle, to see a settlement of this question, but he did not see the justice of settling the question by employing other people's land, after having acquired it at an inadequate price. If land was to be acquired for the purpose of settling this question, it ought to be bought at a price to be ascertained by the ordinary methods of the law and not by these new powers given to the Commissioners. He did not desire to make any personal imputation upon the Estates Commissioners, but they were certainly interested parties; their whole object was to facilitate the working of the Act, and their fear of the Treasury and of the Irish Office led them to offer prices which were entirely inadequate, and there was no possibility of freedom of bargain. The Commissioners if the Bill passed could say to a man, "We want your land, and offer you so much for it. Whether it is too little or not you have got to take it;" there was to be no appeal and thus there would be absolutely no security against the Commissioners offering even a ridiculous and inadequate sum. He did not say that they would offer a ridiculously inadequate sum, but they did offer, and daily offered, as everyone knew, inadequate prices; and if they resorted to the indirect process of declaring land to be or not to be an estate, in order to compel landlords to take prices they did not like, what would they do when they had power, not by this indirect method, of bringing pressure to bear, but to say, "You are going to get so much and no more "? There was no appeal under the Act, and the proposed purchasers could take the land by compulsion and themselves name the price they were prepared to give. So far as he was personally concerned if the Bill embodied the principles of his hon. friend's Amendment, his objections to the measure would be practically at an end. Everyone was anxious to see the question settled, but he thought it ought to be settled with justice, and, if the Amendment was not adopted, there would be left behind in the minds of the owners of land a rankling sense of grievance that

  535
  they had been compulsorily deprived of their lands at an inadequate price.
  New clause—
  "The provisions of the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, relating to the purchase and taking of lands otherwise than by agreement, are incorporated in this Act."—(Mr. Ashley).
  Brought up and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. CHERRY: said he was really surprised that this clause should be moved, and he was still more surprised that such an eminent lawyer as his hon. friend who had just spoken should have appeared in support of it. He had only to point out to the House the effect of the adoption of the clause to show its absurdity. If it was passed it would entirely contradict the Bill as it had passed through Committee. In this Bill they had a complete scheme for the acquisition of land, a scheme which followed the same lines as the House adopted last year in the Labourers Act. In Clause 2 they provided what the Commissioners were to do, and what were the kind of steps that were always necessary in order to obtain land compulsorily. If they incorporated the Lands Clauses Act of 1845—only one Act was mentioned, although there were a whole series of Lands Clauses Acts which were different in Ireland from those in England—whenever anyone came to interpret the Act, they would be met with the question whether the procedure was to be under Clause 2 of this Bill or under the Lands Clauses Act. It would introduce confusion and uncertainty, and no Judge or lawyer would be able to interpret the Bill when it became law. Moreover, the hon. Member who moved the Amendment could not be aware that the ultimate tribunal under the Lands Clauses Act for ascertaining the value of land taken was the jury of the county in which the land was situated. The effect would be that a jury of Roscommon or Leitrim would fix the value of land that was being purchased for the reinstatement of evicted tenants. He knew some hon. Members from Ireland who would be rather in
  536
  favour of adopting a clause of that kind. But the Government were bound to protect the owners. They thought that the system proposed was a fair system, and that the Estates Commissioners were not gentlemen whose only object was to try and cheat the landlords out of their property; they were gentlemen who would perform their public duties to the best of their ability. The procedure under the Bill would be simple, and he could not assent to a clause which would throw the whole thing into confusion, and which if put in force would lead to injustice to the very persons. the hon. Member wished to protect.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid the right hon. and learned Member had expressed his amazement at the clause proposed, but he thought the feeling of those who had listened to the debate—especially after the attempt of the right hon. and learned Member to evade the point—must be one of amazement that the Government should harden its heart to resist this clause. The Chief Secretary laughed, but he would not laugh so much if he knew the state of affairs in Galway. To many persons the case of many tenants in Galway was no laughing matter.
  MR. BIRRELL: I was not laughing at the evicted tenants.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTasked what was the state of things now? The absolute power of evicting these tenants and of fixing the amount of compensation which they wore to receive was to be in the hands of the Estates Commissioners. It must be obvious to anyone who knew the circumstances in Ireland or in any other country that if power was given to three men to evict tenants who had occupied their holdings for over twenty-five years and fixed the compensation it would be very unjust. He would remind the House that the hon. Member for South Tyrone once stated that he would never vote for a proposal which said to a man who had lived on a farm for twelve or fourteen years, "You must give up your holding to the man who previously had it." A feeling of friction must be caused against the Commissioners when they came to decide who should be evicted; the feelings of the tenants who were evicted towards the three men who had

  537
  evicted them must be anything but kindly. Surely the Commissioners were not fair arbiters as to the amount of compensation to be paid to the tenants who would be turned out. Although the Chief Secretary had made so merry over the unfortunate condition of these men—
  MR. BIRRELL: When did I make merry over them?
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid the right hon. Gentleman had treated the debate with the greatest levity and had done so again and again whenever they tried to meet the case of the unfortunate men who had been upon their holdings for a quarter of a century and whose families had been born and bred there, and who, under this Bill, would be turned out of their holdings.
  MR. BIRRELL: That will not be the effect of this Bill.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTthought the fact he had stated was a conclusive argument for the re-committal of the Bill. Anybody who knew anything about Ireland know that what he had described was the actual state of things. The right hon. Gentleman said that the turning out of the men who had been on these holdings for forty years would not be the effect of this measure. He was sorry to say that he did not think the Chief Secretary knew what the actual effect of his Bill would be.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid he had failed to find any relevancy whatever in the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down to the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool. Ho hoped the Government would not be induced to depart from their decision to oppose this Amendment. The value of this Bill was that it should become operative expeditiously, and this Amendment would add fifty-two cumbersome clauses. This was a small and simple Act dealing with a subject which did not affect a very wide area. It contained only fifteen clauses, and to suggest that fifty-two new clauses of a cumber-some character should be added to it was one of the most preposterous propositions he had ever heard made. This Bill was
  538
  intended to restore a certain class of tenants to their former holdings. The evicted tenants were standing at the present time outside the gate of the peasants' paradise in Ireland, which was the ownership and possession of land. The springs of the gate were already moving to admit them, and the proposals contained in this Bill had set those springs going. The Amendment under consideration would introduce a method of procedure calculated to greatly delay that operation. It proposed arbitration; where arbitration failed, umpires were suggested; and where umpires failed, special juries would be called in. All this was cumbersome from beginning to end, and instead of oiling the springs of the Bill the Amendment would hamper, frustrate, and probably annul it altogether. The case was very urgent, and that was the main reason why the House should not accept the Amendment. The proposal had no doubt been made in good faith, but if the hon. Gentleman would only look into the clauses he proposed to embody he would see that instead of expediting its the operation of the Bill, it would hamper it considerably, and that was a good reason why the House should reject it.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid the Bill dealt with matters of very great importance, and he felt very strongly in regard to the position of the unfortunate new tenants. Upon several occasions he had been obliged to laugh at some of the explanations which had been given by the Attorney-General. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to the procedure which the Bill set up for ascertaining the price to be paid for these lands as a simple procedure. That procedure certainly was the greatest example of simplicity which the House had ever had to consider. Let the House compare for a moment the procedure suggested by the Bill with that contained in any other Act proposed under similar conditions. In all other similar measures there was some form of arbitration, and the person whose property was taken compulsorily had some say in the appointment of the persons who were to fix the price of the land. Under this Bill the owner had absolutely nothing to say in the matter, and the duty of fixing the price of the land was placed on persons in whom the owners had very little confidence. But

  539
  even if they had all the confidence in the world, surely when their property was taken from them it was only right that they should have some say in the choice of an arbitrator or judge? This simple procedure, they had been told, was exactly the same as that under the Labourers Act. He wished to point out that under this Bill an inspector was sent down who practically said, "I want this piece of land and I am going to give you so much for it." It might be 50 per cent. under its proper value or it might be over its proper value, but, at any rate, here was a person in the appointment of whom the landlord had no say whatever, who had the power to choose what land he required and also to fix the price to be paid for it That was bad enough, and if the matter stopped there, and if some such provision as was provided for in the Amendment were inserted, things would not be quite so bad; but there was to be no appeal from that extraordinary procedure, and it would be placed in one person's hands to say what land was to be taken and how much was to be paid for it. That might be simple from the point of view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, but it was very unjust, and in his opinion, if the House was allowed to judge for itself instead of accepting the view of the Attorney-General, it would never consent to put such extraordinary powers into the hands of a single individual. The Attorney-General had told them that the procedure was the same under the Labourers Act.
  MR. CHERRYsaid that that was not what he said. His statement was that they found a precedent in the Labourers Act.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid that under the Labourers Act the rural district council held the position which under this Act was given to the Estates Commissioners. They were empowered to go to a landowner and say "We desire to have this piece of land for labourers cottages." They would then draw up a scheme, but they had to bring in an outside authority in the shape of an inspector to fix the price. There was a fundamental difference between the two Acts at the very outset. In the case of the Labourers Act the persons who chose the ground were not the
  540
  same persons who fixed the price. The machinery of the Labourers Act enabled a scheme to be thrown out if it was found on inquiry that the provisions were being used for the purpose of persecuting a farmer or landlord, but there was absolutely nothing of the sort in this Bill, and to say that it in any way resembled the Labourers Act was to mislead the House, though not intentionally. It was absolutely futile to say that because this measure would be administered by public servants that they had no interest in giving a smaller price for the land than its value. Anyone who was provided with public money for the purpose of buying anything had as a matter of duty to make as good a bargain as he could, and it was not fair that the Estate Commissioners who were in the position of buyers should also have the fixing of the price. It certainly was unfair to the landlords. The Amendment had been objected to it by the Nationalist Members because it would incorporate in the Bill the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. That Act had been in operation for over fifty years. Its peculiarities and shortcomings were well-known to lawyers, and he did not think there would be any particular difficulty caused by its application in this case. He did not say that the tribunal provided by the Lands Clauses Act was the best in the world, but it was far better than the proposal in the Bill. The incorporation of the Lands Clauses Act would remove a great blot on the Bill, namely, the absolute unfairness and injustice to those whose land was to be compulsorily acquired. The Chief Secretary had said that he did not know this Bill would have the effect of putting out tenants who had been in possession of their farms for twenty-five years. The right hon. Gentleman must be more simple-minded than he thought if after listening to the Amendments proposed by Nationalist Members, designed to give still greater powers to the Commissioners than the Bill proposed, he was still of opinion that the measure would not operate in the direction of turning out new tenants from their holdings. It was absolutely futile for the Chief Secretary to pretend that the agitation when the Bill was passed would not be directed to clearing out the present holders and rein stating persons who had been evicted Hon. Members below the gangway had

  541
  admitted that they would use their powers of persuasion towards having the evicted tenants reinstated in the identical holdings from which they had been evicted. He was not very much enamoured of the particular form of the Amendment. It was difficult to suggest an efficient tribunal which would be comparatively cheap and free from cumbersomeness, but that such a tribunal could be suggested, and ought to be set up, he had equally no doubt.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid the Attorney-General had already pointed out that hopeless confusion would follow from the adoption of the Amendment which would mean the incorporation of fifty-two clauses of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. Were they to believe that the mover of the Amendment wished that?
  MR. ASHLEYsaid he did not pretend that this would be the most perfect form, but under the Re-solution which closured the Bill it was quite impossible to have any discussion whatever on this very important point.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid that was a matter as to the disposition of time. In his opinion hon. Members opposite were to blame if the Bill was not discussed. Any Opposition could, if it chose, prevent the later clauses of a Bill from being discussed by discussing at enormous length the preceding clauses. He maintained that ample time was provided for the discussion of Clause 2. Did the hon. Gentleman suggest that the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act should be substituted for Clause 2? If so, it might have been supposed that he would have had the foresight to put on the Paper an Amendment to strike out Clause 2. He did not know whether the hon. Member was really serious in his proposal. He could not suppose the hon. Member was anxious to refer these matters from the Estates Commissioners to a jury. As to the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, he had benefited as a lawyer far too much from it ever to speak disrespectfully of it. He remembered attending a dinner at the Surveyors' Institute where there was only one toast, and it was drunk with almost royal honours, namely, "The Lands Clauses Act and no amendment." He did not exaggerate when he said that it had put millions of money into the
  542
  pockets of lawyers, surveyors, and other ministering angels of justice, and if they applied its provisions to the acquisition of land under this measure they would defeat the purpose in view and load the matter with costly proceedings. If 80,000 acres were to be acquired for the purpose of reinstating the evicted tenants, either in their old holdings or in new holdings, some cheap and speedy tribunal must be set up, otherwise the thing could not be done. An hon. Member had stated that he would have preferred the machinery of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act to any other machinery. That would have involved the nomination of a single arbitrator. He could not believe the proposal of a single arbitrator by the Irish Government for the purpose of determining the value of land would have received any support from hon. Gentlemen opposite. He did not think anything could be made of the point that a single arbitrator would be a better tribunal than the three Estates Commissioners. He must not say that this point had been discussed ad nauseam, but if there was one point which had been argued over and over again it was the question whether the machinery of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act was preferable to that proposed by the Bill-He still maintained that the mere fact that the Estates Commissioners were the persons who had set this machinery a going in any way exposed them to the suggestion that they had a personal interest in the fixing of the value of the land. He could not understand how it possibly could be said that these gentlemen, who had no personal interest to serve, who were not going to benefit by Is. from the measure, who were not to be paid in proportion, but in inverse proportion to the amount of the purchase money which fell to the landlord, were to gain any advantage whatever from the Bill. They had got no interest in keeping down the value of land in Ireland. And to impute to them motives which even a rural district council had in keeping down the rates was unworthy. Everybody would admit that to substitute the machinery of the Lands Clauses Act would be to admit that they did not attach importance to their own Bill.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had declared that the Commissioners would

  543
  not have the slightest interest in the administration of the Act; but they had announced that they would like to increase the number of holdings in Ireland by 183,000. That might be a very laudable object, but if the Commissioners gave a less price for the land they would get more land for the new holdings. The right hon. Gentleman objected to the Amendment because it would take time. He agreed that it would take time, but better that than that injustice should be done. There was an underlying necessity in all tribunals that justice should be done. They, on the opposition side of the House, thought that they were not getting justice. This new tribunal would exercise its great powers unchecked, absolutely without control, and confiscation would be the result. The Commissioners could take what land they liked, put their own price upon it; they would be responsible to no one, and there would be no appeal. There was no wonder that those who had a liking for fair play and justice should support the Amendment. He preferred delay to expeditious injustice.
  SIR F. BANBURYasked whether it was correct to say that grazing lands which at present were worth £2 an acre could be bought by the Estates Commissioners compulsorily; at £1 an acre? If so, would not that keep down the price of land all over Ireland? The hon. Member for North Kildare had stated that in his opinion the
  Amendment would be unworkable because it would cause delay in the administration of the Act and that the necessity of the case was expedition. He believed in expedition in all the affairs of life, but not at the expense of justice. It had been stated that the Amendment would incorporate into this Bill fifty-two clauses from the Lands Clauses Act. No doubt that was a large number, but under those fifty-two clauses justice would be obtained. Those clauses had been in existence for sixty years, and under them justice had always been administered. [Cries of "No" from the Ministerial and Irish benches.] At any rate a proper price had been given to people whose property had been taken from them by compulsion. Now came the right hon. Gentleman and said that the Commissioners when they saw a piece of property which they liked could take it compulsorily and fix the price, and there was no rule laid down in the Bill to indicate what price they should pay, and there was no appeal from their decision. It was absurd to say, therefore, that a fair and proper price would be given under the provisions of the Bill. Instead of settling the land question—which they all wished to do—[Cries of "Oh" from the Irish benches]—it would unsettle it. Under these circumstances he would support the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 69; Noes, 263. (Division List No. 333.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, RtHn.SirAlex.F.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Keswick, William

  Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.Hugh O.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hn. Sir H.

  CraigCharles Curtis(Antrim, S.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R

  Balfour, RtHn.A. J.(City Lond.)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Dublin, S.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Barrie, H-T.(Londonderry, N.)

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

  Nield, Herbert

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Fell, Arthur

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Forster, Henry William

  Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cave, George

  Gardner.Ernest (Berks, East)

  Ratherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hervey, F. W. F (BuryS.Edm'ds

  Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hill, Sir Clement(Shrewsbury)

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn.Col.W.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Tumour, Viscount

  Wards, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Ashley and Sir Frederick

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Younger, George

  Banbury.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Agnew, George William

  Elibank, Master of

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Erskine, David C.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Ambrose, Robert

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lough, Thomas

  Astbury, John Meir

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lundon, W.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Macdonald, J. R(Leicester)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Findlay. Alexander

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Barker, John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  M'Craie, George

  Beauchamp, E.

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

  M'Kean, John

  Bell, Richard

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Grayson, Albert Victor

  M'Killop, W.

  Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Maddison, Frederick

  Bertram, Julius

  Gulland, John W.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Bethell,SirJH (Essex, Romford

  Gurdon, RtHnSir W.Brampton

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Marnham, F. J.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Massie, J.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Halpin, J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Boland, John

  Hammond, John

  Meehan, Patrick A.,

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Menzies, Walter

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Branch, James

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Brigg, John

  Hayden, John Pastick

  Mooney, J. J.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Morrell, Philip

  Brunner, Rt. HnSirJT (Cheshire

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morse, L. L.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Henderson, J. M.)Aberdeen, W.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Murnaghan, George

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Higham, John Sharp

  Murphy, John

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hodge, John

  Napier, T. B.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hogan, Michael

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Cameron, Robert

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Nolan, Joseph

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Causton, Rt.HnRichard Knight

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Donnell, T.(Kerry, W.),

  Clough, William

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  O'Malley, William

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Collins, SirWm. J (S. Pancras, W.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  O'Shee, James John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, SirDBrynmor (Swansea)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Corbett.CH (Sussex, E.Grinst'd

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Partington, Oswald

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Jordon, Jeremiah

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Crean, Eugene

  Joyce, Michael

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Crooks, William

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Crossley, William J.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Pollard, Dr.

  Cullinan, J.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Kilbride, Denis

  Price, C. E. (Edinbugh, Central)

  Delany, William

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Radford, G. H.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lambert, George

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Duckworth, James

  Lamont, Norman

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Duffy, William J.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  546

  547

  Rea, Walter Russell(Scarboro'

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Reddy, M.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wason, RtHnE. (Clackmannan

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Watt, Henry A.

  Richards, TF (Wolverhampton)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Weir, James Galloway

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Snowden, P.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Robertson, SirGScott (Bradf'rd

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Rowlands, J.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Runciman, Walter

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Russell, T. W.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland.)

  Toulmin, George

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Ure, Alexander

  Winfrey, R.

  Sears, J. E.

  Verney, F. W.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (HawickB.)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Sheehy, David

  Wardle, George J.

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Waring, Walter

  Pease.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  *MR. ASHLEYmoved a new clause which provided that: "Where any land is compulsorily purchased or taken under this Act all sporting rights: hitherto enjoyed by the vendor shall, if he so desires, remain vested in him notwithstanding such purchase." He maintained that this clause was not out of harmony with the traditions of the Act of 1903, and the House ought to continue the spirit of that Act. When pieces of a landlord's property were to be dealt with compulsorily the general amenities as well as the sporting rights of the property would be injured, and it was a distinct asset to the old landlord that he should be left in possession of his demesne and the amenities attached to his residence. The Irish landlords were debarred in consequence of their religion and politics from taking any political or other share in the local life of the community, and were, therefore, thrown back on the enjoyment of the amenities of their residences. The policy of the Government should be to encourage the spending of money in Ireland in the same way as was now done in the cause of sport in Scotland.
  VISCOUNT TURNOURseconded the Motion.
  New clause—
  "Where any land is compulsorily purchased or taken under this Act all sporting rights hitherto enjoyed by the vendor shall, if he so desires, remain vested in him notwithstanding such purchase."—(Mr. Ashley.)
  Brought up and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. GWYNNsaid ho opposed this clause because he was one of the people who were extremely anxious that there should continue to be game in Ireland. The hon. Member did not know very much about Ireland or understand the people very well. He held that the only way to make Ireland a comfortable country for shooting or fishing was to vest the game in the occupiers of the holdings. The only places where shooting and fishing were satisfactory at the present moment were those places where the sporting rights were vested in the occupiers. The effect of this clause would prohibit anything of the sort. He protested against the clause and prophesied that if an evicted tenant was planted on a holding over which the landlord had shooting and fishing rights he would undertake that there would be nothing either to shoot or fish.
  MR. CHERRYsaid the Government could not accept the proposal. He did not think anything would be more likely to cause friction and trouble between landlord and evicted tenant who was restored compulsorily to the land than the continuance of the sporting rights in the hands of the landlord. The exercise of the landlord's right to enter upon the land at any time

  549
  give rise to very great trouble between the parties and disputes and bloodshed might arise. It was very desirable now that the whole system of land purchase was being carried out that the landlords should waive all rights whatsoever. The reason that the Bill was brought in was to do away with quarrelling and friction.
  MR. WALTER LONGthought there was a good deal in the argument that if the sporting rights were properly exercised they would form a valuable source of revenue to the country. If they were allowed to be distributed over a large number of people owning each a small amount of land there would be no sporting rights at all. He thought it would be a bad thing if a single plot of land were taken in the middle of an estate for the purposes of reinstatement and that the tenant should have the sporting rights. That would spoil the whole of the shooting on the estate.
  MR. CHERRYstated that in the Act of 1903 there was a provision which left it open to the Estates Commissioners to allow the vendor in any particular case to retain by agreement the sporting rights.
  MR. WALTER LONGagreed that that met that part of the case. It was important that a landlord should be enabled to retain the sporting rights when only a portion of his estate was taken. It was in the best interests of Ireland that the sporting possibilities of the country should be developed, for they would undoubtedly be a very valuable source of income to the country
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that after what the right hon. Gentleman had stated he supposed the Amendment would be withdrawn. He quite agreed with the right hon. Member for South Dublin as to the specific value of the preservation of game. But the preservation of game depended absolutely on the sympathy of the people, and any attempt to preserve game without that sympathy must be an utter failure. He controverted the statement that game could not be preserved if the preservation was distributed over a
  550
  large number of people. He knew a mountain in Wicklow that was sold some time ago. Before it was sold the sporting rights were leased every year and gamekeepers were employed and so forth. But for the last few years the game had been diminishing in quantity. The mountain had now been bought by some fifteen families who lived in the valleys who purchased the grazing rights. They formed themselves into a committee for the preservation of the game and leased the shooting j every year, and it was interesting to know that the rental for the shooting on that mountain was more than enough to cover the annuity which these families had to pay to the Commissioners. The moment this arrangement was made these men themselves became the gamekeepers, and it was only in that way in his opinion that the game could be made a valuable asset to Ireland. If that example could not be followed they must undoubtedly despair of preserving the game, but if they enlisted the sympathy of the people themselves in the work, he believed that game in Ireland would soon become a valuable asset to the country.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid, as the discussion had assumed such a friendly character, he ventured to suggest that if the Government could not accept the words proposed they might do something else in the way of concession. He quite agreed that it was quite impossible for game to be preserved unless there was co-operation between landlord and tenant. He thought the rights should be vested in the owners of the soil. If they were vested in the tenants game would very soon disappear. To his mind the experience of which the hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken was a unique one, and they must be far from expecting it all over Ireland. The preservation of game ought certainly to be a bond of union between landlord and tenant, and he believed that if words were put in the Bill by which the rights were left with the landlords, very good results would follow. As they were endeavouring to conciliate all sides by means of this Bill, he believed that it would only be justice that the rights in question

  551
  should be left with the landlords. They were rights which they certainly exercised under the Act of 1903, and which he hoped would be continued to them.
  New Clause and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDmoved a clause which provided for non-liability of tenants for debts contracted prior to purchase. It would be remembered, he said, that the other night a subsection was put into Clause 8 protecting the restored tenant's holding in respect of debts incurred previous to the reinstatement. That had been done on the ground that the money was given by the State for the purpose of reinstatement, and that it would be absurd if the next day a private creditor could walk in and sell the tenant up. The Amendment which stood in his name was really part of the Amendment which stood in the name of his hon. friend the Member for Dublin, who had asked him to move this portion of it. He admitted that as it stood on the Paper it was too wide, and all he asked was that there should be some protection of the property given to these restored tenants. It would be absurd that, after the Government had given the tenant a farm and stocked it, the next day a creditor might walk in and seize the property provided with the money of the State. If the Government could suggest words which would protect these chattels he would not move this Amendment, which he thought too wide, and wider than he intended. He would, however, formally move the clause in order to see what the Government would do.
  MR. O'SHEEseconded the Motion.
  New clause—
  "No evicted tenant who has purchased a holding under the Act of 1903, or who shall purchase a holding under the said Act or under this Act, shall be liable to be adjudicated a bankrupt, or to have any of his property taken in execution, or otherwise made liable to satisfy any debt contracted or incurred by such evicted tenant prior to the date of the order vesting such holding in him."—(Mr. John Redmond.)
  Brought up and read a first time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. BIRRELLsaid the Bill as already drawn up contained, as the hon. and learned Member had just said, a subsection in Clause 8, protecting the holding in respect of debts contracted by the tenant before his reinstatement, and he agreed that the protection given to the holding itself should extend to stock and equipment, where such was provided by the State. Although it was quite understood the Commission would carefully consider the financial position and would not reinstate a notoriously impecunious tenant or one who was heavily in debt, still there might be a debt hanging over the tenant, and on the morrow of his reinstatement his means of livelihood might be swept away by the creditors. He apprehended that it was not the intention of the House to give a person the means of paying his debts. The object in making a grant was to enable the tenant to live and thrive, and therefore some words should be inserted to protect the stock and equipment as the holding was protected under Clause 8. Caution in the selection of words was necessary, and perhaps there should be a time limit, but the intention was that the Treasury grant should not be forthwith appropriated for the satisfaction of an outstanding debt. While providing for protection for the grant from the State, at the same time it was necessary to avoid the setting up of a class of tenants who would not be liable for the settlement of their debts. He could not at the moment propose words in substitution of those in the Amendment which were too wide, but he would undertake that the proposal should be made in another place.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I can withdraw if the right hon. Gentleman moves.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am afraid I cannot do that without notice. All I can do is to undertake that words shall be moved in another place.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid it was comforting to hear these allusions to another place where work could be done that could not be done in that House;

  553
  and it was satisfactory, in spite of what was said by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that there was still some practical usefulness in a Second Chamber.
  MR. BIRRELLwas understood to say that that had never been denied.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he had merely offered the observation in passing. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it was not the intention of the House that there should be taken from a man goods which had been made his as the result of the action of Parliament. He took it that the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to bring up in another place would not protect any property which was the tenant's own, and which had not been acquired by him under the Bill. Of course, it was obvious that it would be ridiculous that somebody else should get the benefit of what the State had given the tenant, but he hoped that the words drawn up for the purpose of meeting that case would make it perfectly clear that a man would have no advantage from them save in respect of that which he held by the kindness of the State.
  MR. BIRRELL: Certainly.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman could not accept the words now, how did he know what another place would do? The right hon. Gentleman had not command of big battalions in the other House, and the Bill might come back without anything having been put in.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid he had been told that he could not move a new clause without notice.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid it would be possible to move an Amendment to the proposed new clause by inserting the words: "No chattel appertaining to the holding and acquired within the meaning of Section 8 or Section 2 of this Act shall be liable to be taken in satisfaction of any debt prior to," etc. He thought those words would meet the ease; at all events it would give them something on which they could draft their Amendments in the House of Lords.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid that what he could do was to leave out all the words after the word "No," and insert these words: "Farm stock or other chattels provided for the evicted tenant by means of a grant or loan from the Estates Commissioners, under the Act of 1903, shall be liable to be taken in execution or otherwise made liable to satisfy any deb prior to the date of the Order vesting the holding in him."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: That would be right.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT,on a point of order, asked what they were discussing. He understood they were considering a particular Amendment, and hon. Members had been simply bandying words across the floor of the House.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid the hon. and learned Member for Waterford seemed somewhat apprehensive on this subject, and he shared that apprehension. They had ample cause to be apprehensive with regard to the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to move in place of the proposition before the House. A proposal of this kind must inevitably destroy the credit of the evicted tenants, because they would be boycotted. Any words of the kind suggested would be liable to the greatest possible abuse, and it was obviously undesirable that goods should be taken at a moment's notice. It should be remembered that in reinstating evicted tenants consideration would be paid to finding out whether they were desirable tenants. It could not be held that a man who had a great many debts in the neighbourhood was a desirable tenant.
  Clause read a second time.
  MR. CHERRYmoved to amend the clause so that it would read: "No farm stock, or other chattels, provided for the evicted tenant by means of a grant or loan from the Estates Commissioners under the Act of 1903, or under this Act, shall be made available in any bankruptcy, or by any process or proceeding at law, to pay, satisfy, or discharge, in

  555
  whole or in part, any debt contracted or incurred by such evicted tenant prior to the date of the Order vesting such holding in him."
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that more than once the Government had declined to amend the Act of 1903. They had held that this Bill was based upon that Act, and they had declined to accept Amendments contrary to the spirit of the main Act. Under the Amendment now suggested by the Attorney-General they might be doing something in regard to which many of them had very little knowledge, because they were now making this proposition applicable to the evicted tenants under the main Act. He would like to know whether the Government were accepting responsibility now for doing what they had frequently refused to do before, namely, making a serious Amendment of the Act of 1903 under cover of this Bill.
  MR. BIRRELLreplied that when the Government had said they had no intention of interfering with the Land Act of 1903 they meant the operations of land purchase under that Act. This was a small matter relating simply to the position of evicted tenants who had obtained an equipment grant. It was not desirable to make distinctions between tenants in this matter.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHasked if the right hon. Gentleman would give the House some assurance that his representative in another place would be authorised to go very carefully into this matter.
  Amandment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGmoved a clause limiting the number of evicted tenants to be reinstated or supplied with new holdings under the Bill to 2,000. He said his object was to provide some finality to the Bill. It was generally supposed that not more than 500 or 600 tenants would have to be dealt with under the Act of 1903, but from the Report of the Commissioners they found
  556
  that 1,000 evicted tenants had been dealt with already, and that it was proposed to deal with 2,000 more. While he and his friends adhered to what they said in 1903—namely, that all bona fide evicted tenants should be reinstated, such a large number above the number supposed to exist in 1903 had been produced that they thought some definite limitation should be inserted in the Bill beyond which the Estates Commissioners should not be allowed to go. The object he had in view might be met either by limiting the number of persons to be reinstated or the amount of land to be provided; but he held that some limitation should be placed on the powers of the Commissioners in this respect.
  MR. BARRIEseconded the Motion. He appealed to the Government, in the interests of the Estates Commissionres and of those tenants who would be dispossessed of their holdings to make room for the evicted tenants, to accept the clause. The duties of the Commissioners under the Bill were not properly appreciated in the House, affecting as they did their primary duties which they had to discharge under the Land Act. The agitation which had led to the introduction of this Bill had met with marked success. As the representative of another class of tenants in Ireland he felt that he was fairly entitled to ask that the Government should state the total number of evicted tenants to whom this revolutionary piece of legislation was to apply. He deplored that these new duties should be laid upon the Estates Commissioners, because it would lead to the hanging up of the voluntary provisions of the Land Act. He understood that the hon. Member for South Tyrone had received remonstrances from the north of Ireland as to the delay that was taking place in the operation of the purchase clauses of the Land Act.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I have had remonstrances as to the price.
  MR. BARRIEsaid he believed that remonstrances had appeared in the public Press that the hon. Gentleman had not introduced his own Bill. He was sure that many of the hon. Member's

  557
  friends in the north of Ireland would be interested to hear from him what his intentions were in regard to that matter. An earnest desire existed in many parts of Ireland that they should finally see the end of this class of pernicious legislation. He thought he would not be using too strong language when he said that it was legislation which put a premium on dishonesty.
  MR. FLAVINasked if the hon. Gentleman would say where the dishonesty came in.
  MR. BARRIEsaid he would remind the hon. Member that the official body which he represented were responsible for the evicted tenants. They heard a great deal in these latter days of patriotism. He always understood that true patriotism was an unselfish thing; but his hon. friends below the gangway did not see it in that way
  MR. CREANasked the Deputy-Speaker if the hon. Member was in order.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid that the hon. Member was not dealing with the new clause.
  MR. BARRIEsaid that, in deference to the ruling of the Deputy-Speaker, he would not pursue that subject. But he would say that there was a tendency for the number of evicted tenants who sought to be re-instated still to increase He maintained that in the interest of the British taxpayer, if not in that of the Irish taxpayer, some provision should be inserted in the Bill limiting the number. He objected to the taking away of the Estates Commissioners from their duties connected with the working of the Land Purchase Act of 1903.
  New clause—
  "The number of evicted tenants to be reinstated or supplied with new holdings under this Act is hereby limited to two thousand."— (Mr. Charles Craig.)
  Brought up, and read a first time.
  Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. CHERRYsaid he had heard that speech over and over again. It and the previous speech had consisted of nothing but vain repetition, and he could only repeat the answer which had been given over and over again. The Estates Commissioners had reported that 1,609 tenants appeared to them to be such as deserved to be restored. They estimated that of the remaining applications about 400 would similarly be considered to be suitable to be restored, say, in all, 2,009, although they might be willing to cut off the nine.
  MR. BARRIEsaid that as far as he was concerned he would be quite willing to cut another 200.
  MR. CHERRYsaid he could not understand why hon. Members would not allow some sense to the Estates Commissioners. They had gone through all this matter, and they had practically made up their minds. They, however, did not want to be tied down to a particular figure, but to be allowed a little freedom.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he could share the complaint of the Attorney-General against the manner in which the Amendment had been moved. But he thought the hon. Gentlemen above the gangway had subserved a useful function by moving those foolish Amendments which enabled the House to take the measure of the opponents of Home Rule. They were asked, for the first time, to place a numerical limitation on an act of justice. Supposing there were 2,001 persons who sought reinstatement, when they came to 2,000 they were to be told that no more justice was to be given! Suppose a limitation of the kind was proposed to the right to recover small debts, or in actions for breach of promise! The thing was absurd. Really hon. Gentlemen had done a useful service by repeating themselves over and over again, but he wished to give them the benefit of the admission that they were doing their best.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHasked the Attorney-General if he could state definitely whether there would or would not be more than 2,000 applications.
  MR. CHERRYsaid he could not say.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid that there were a great many men in Ireland who had gone so far as to curse the hon. Members for Waterford and East Mayo when they lost their holdings under the Plan of Campaign. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not give the House the information he asked for, he begged to move the adjournment of the House in order that the Chief Secretary might return to his place and supply them with the information.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: A Motion for the adjournment of the House from a private Member is not possible under the. Resolution governing our procedure on this Bill.
  MR. PIKE PEASEsaid that many of those who did not take part in these debates felt very strongly in regard to this Bill. He supported the clause because he thought that if a smaller sum were stated they were likely to do less injustice. He had received a letter from a man in Ireland in regard to this Bill. That man owned property in Ireland, and twenty years ago he turned out several of his tenants who had paid no rent for three or four years. During those twenty years he had built up his property, and had put it in order; in fact he had made it his life's work. And now he found himself obliged to leave
  his farm and hand it over to some other man.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked why the hon. Gentleman assumed that a man in that position was going to be compelled to leave his farm. Why was it that hon. Gentlemen opposite denied to the Estates Commissioners, who were appointed by their own Government, all sense of fair play, all sense of public decency? He had never heard men attacked, even in the most troubled times of Irish history, as these three officials had been attacked. He had heard a great many hard things said about Irish magistrates and others, but he had never heard such attacks made on these men, who were incapable of defending themselves there, ever since this Bill had been brought before the House. All he could say was that it was a gross outrage that it should be so.
  MR. PIKE PEASEsaid that by the courtesy of the House he wished to be allowed to read the letter. [Loud cries of "No" from the Irish Benches.]
  *MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid that the hon. Member could not read the letter without the general assent of the House.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 43; Noes, 234. (Division List No. 334.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood,Rt,Hn.SirAlex.F

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Rawlinson,John Frederick Pee

  Ashley, W. W.

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark,G'v'n)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fell, Arthur

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Beach,Hn.Hichael Hugh Hicks

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Smith,Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Starkey, John R.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hardy, Laurenc (Kent, Ashf'd)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hervey,F.W.F. (Bury S.Ed'ds)

  Thomson,W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Cave, George

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt.Hn. Col.W.

  Wortley, Rt.Hon. C. G. Stuart-

  Coates, E.Feetham (Lewisham)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Younger, George

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n)

  Mr. Charles Craig and Mr. Hugh Barrie.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork,N.E.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Barker, John

  Agnew, George William

  Baker,Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B (Worc'r)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Bell, Richard

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Malley, William

  Bennett, E. N.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  O'Shee, James John

  Bethell,SirJ.H.(Essex,Romf'd)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Henderson,J.M. (Aberdeen,W.)

  Partington, Oswald

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pearson,Sir W.D. (Colchester)

  Boland, John

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Pearson,W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Hodge, John

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hogan, Michael

  Pollard, Dr.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Brigg, John

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Price, C. E.(Edinburgh,Central

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Hudson, Walter

  Radford, G. H.

  Brunner,F.J.L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Brunner,Rt.Hn.Sir J.T. (Ches.)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Rea, Walter Russell(Scarboro')

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jenkins, J.

  Reddy, M.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cameron, Robert

  Jones,SirD.Brynmor(Swansea)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Richards,T.F. (Wovlerh'mpt'n

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cheetham, John Frederic k

  Jowett, F. W.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Joyce, Michael

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Robertson,Sir G.Scott (Bradf'd

  Clough, William

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  King,Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rowlands, J.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lamont, Norman

  Russell, T. W.

  Crean, Eugene

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Crooks, William

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Crossley, William J.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Sears, J. E.

  Cullinan, J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Seddon, J.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Lundon, W.

  Shaw, Rt.Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Delany, William

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Sheehy, David

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Duffy, William J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Snowden, P.

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down,S.)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal, E.)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall

  M'Callum, John M.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  M'Crae, George

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Kean, John

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Erskine, David C.

  M'Killop, W.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Evans, Samuel T.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Maddison, Frederick

  Thompson, J.W.H. (Somerset,E

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Toulmin, George

  Ffrench, Peter

  Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)

  Ure, Alexander

  Findlay, Alexander

  Marnham, F. J.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Massie, J.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Meagher, Michael

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Meehan,Patrick A.

  Wardle, George J.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Waring, Walter

  Gilhooly, James

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Wason, RtHn.E.(Clackmannan

  Gill, A. H.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Wason,John Cathc art(Orkney)

  Gladstone, Rt.Hn. Herbert John

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Glover, Thomas

  Morse, L. L.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Weir, James Galloway

  Grayson, Albert Victor

  Murnaghan, George

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Murphy, John

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Gulland, John W.

  Murray, James

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Gurdon,RtHn.Sir W.Brampton

  Napier, T. B.

  Whiteley,John Henry (Halifax)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Nolan, Joseph

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Halpin, J.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  562

  563

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.

  Winfrey, R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Wilson, J.H.(Middlesbrough)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Whiteley and Mr. J.A.

  Wilson, P.W.(St. Pancras, s.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Pease.

  MR. CHARLES CRAIGmoved to omit Clause 1 (power to acquire land compulsorily). He apologised for inflicting upon the House what was practically a Second Reading speech, but said the clause was of the utmost importance as it contained the main principle of the Bill. It contained the principle of compulsion, and allowed the Estates Commissioners to acquire tenanted land. He desired to register again the determination of his colleagues and himself that, so far as it lay in their power, they would not allow such a clause to pass. They considered that compulsion was unnecessary to carry out the intention of the Act of 1903 so far as it applied to evicted tenants. They considered it unnecessary because they believed that under the voluntary powers of the Act of 1903 the Estates Commissioners had carried out far more in the way of reinstatement of evicted tenants than was ever expected, or hoped by the supporters of the Act. During the discussion it was repeatedly said by Nationalists that if 600 or 700 evicted tenants were reinstated the evicted tenants' question would be settled once and for all. Over 1,000 tenants had been reinstated. He had understood at the passing of the Act of 1903 that only tenants who had been evicted in the course of the Plan of Campaign were to be reinstated, and it was a revelation to him to know that all evicted tenants, no matter what was the cause of their eviction, were to be reinstated. There were a hundred and one reasons which caused people in all countries to be evicted—bad farming, failure to pay rent, thriftlessness, and many other causes led to it; but of the seventeen Plan of Campaign estates, fifteen had been settled, so that it might be said that fifteen-seventeenths, or at any rate a large proportion of the bona fide political evicted tenants, had been restored to their farms. Besides the Plan of Campaign estates, there were a great number of other tenants throughout Ireland who had been evicted. The present Bill asked the House to grant the most extraordinary powers of compulsory acquisition of land which had
  564
  been granted to any body of men. They could reinstate, not only the so-called "wounded soldiers of the land war," but the men who lost their farms for other than political reasons. If it were admitted that the vast majority of the political evicted tenants had been reinstated, and if it were admitted that those were the persons whom they were primarily legislating for in 1903, then there was no necessity in the wide world to come to the House and ask for compulsory powers to reinstate those other evicted tenants. The tenants who lost their farms for non-political causes had less claim on the indulgence of the House than the political evicted tenants. It was quite unnecessary to ask for compulsory powers to acquire land to reinstate these tenants, because it had been shown that in the three years that had elapsed since the passing of the Act of 1903, 1,000 tenants had already been reinstated, and if the same rate of progress continued the whole of the evicted tenants, if they did not exceed 2,000, would be reinstated in from four to six years. With regard to acquiring tenanted land, both the hon. Member for Waterford and the hon. Member for East Mayo had categorically and specifically stated that they did not ask that any new tenant should be put out of his holding to make room for the evicted tenant, and he regarded it as a breach of faith on the part of those two hon. Gentlemen and their Party as a whole to ask now that these unfortunate men should leave their farms which had been their homes for so many years in order to put back men who would be greater strangers to the holdings than the present tenants. Having regard to the way in which the debate had developed, his hon. friends and. himself thought the question of the tenanted land was the most important part of the Bill. If the Bill was passed in its present form the Chief Secretary told them that the case of a new tenant being put out of his holding would be very rare and that that power would be exercised by the Estates Commissioners only on the rarest occasions. If they had had some real assurance that that would be so—if they had had any

  565
  limitations in the Bill—they might have taken another view of the matter. But there were no limitations which differentiated the new tenant who was a bona fide farmer from the man who was a mere caretaker. He had no great objection to the latter class being compensated and turned out of their holding to make room for the original tenant, but that class did not constitute the majority of new tenants. His information was that the majority of new tenants were bona fide farmers, and it was not right for the House of Commons to hand over these men to the animosity and hostility of the Estates Commissioners, who would have the whole command of this Act put into their hands and who would be subjected to the enormous power wielded by the United Irish League to get these unfortunate men out of their farms. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford made no secret of the fact that since the passing of the Act of 1903 he had done all in his power to dispossess the new tenants and get the evicted tenants put into their places, and it was contrary to all conceptions of human nature to suppose that these three gentlemen could resist the pressure brought to bear upon them. Those were the two chief considerations which prompted him to move the omission of Clause 1. There were other minor points which made the clause unjust. It should contain a provision with regard to the amount to be paid by the Commissioners for the grass land which formed a large portion of the land to be acquired by the Commissioners under this Bill, and stringent regulations should be made to compel the Commissioners to pay the market value of the land. It was an axiom of English law that if anything was taken away from any person for the public benefit the loss should not fall on him, but on the persons benefited. Some conditions or directions ought also to be inserted in the clause compelling the Commissioners to offer, not what they thought was a proper price, but the real market value of the land. If a man was to have land taken from him compulsorily they should give him the full market value, and if possible a further sum because of the compulsory acquisition. That was the ordinary procedure in cases of compulsory acquisition, and if that
  566
  were done he did not think that there would be very much need to complain. But there was nothing in the Bill which would ensure that the tenant would receive the full market value. In the Minutes of Evidence before the Commissioners on Congested Districts the various witnesses had different ideas as to what the value of grass lands should be. It had been stated that Mr. Finucane, one of the Commissioners, had certain ideas as to the value of grass lands which if carried out would not give the owners the full value of those lands. Therefore, there should be included in the Bill specific directions which would make it incumbent on the Estates Commissioners, or on the Court of Appeal which it was hoped would be incorporated later in this measure, to give the top market value for the land. ["Tip-top."] An hon. Member suggested tip-top; he had no objection. He thought it perfectly reasonable that where land was taken compulsorily the full market value should be given. ["Hear, hear."] The Chief Secretary cheered that, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would, before the Bill left the House, so alter the clause as to carry that out. Hon. Members on his side of the House thought that before the Estates Commissioners were allowed to acquire these holdings or any holdings compulsorily, the proposal to acquire them should be put before some independent tribunal, he thought it ought to be the Judicial Commissioner. Reference had been made by the learned Attorney-General to the analogy to be found in the Labourers Act passed last year, and he had said that this Bill was drawn up in strict conformity with the provisions of that enactment. But he thought they had proved to the House that this Bill in its essentials differed absolutely from the Labourers Act, for under that measure the rural district council, when acquiring land for the purpose of erecting upon it labourers cottages, had to draw up a scheme which was submitted to a separate tribunal altogether, namely, an inspector sent down by the Local Government Board to make inquiry. They thought the same thing might be done under this Bill, and that where the Estates Commissioners desired to acquire land, whether tenanted or untenanted,

  567
  for the purpose of reinstating evicted tenants, they should have to put their proposal before the Judicial Commissioner, who should inquire into the reasonableness of taking the land. He thought that was a very reasonable suggestion, and that the clause should be left out of the Bill. He freely admitted that these reasons, although they applied to the first clause, were equally against the whole Bill, roughly speaking. In view of the inordinate and extraordinary powers to be given to the Commissioners to apply compulsion where compulsion was not necessary, and the proposals to take un-tenanted land, while placing no restrictions on the Estates Commissioners, he opposed this clause. He begged to move.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT,:in seconding the Amendment, said he thought that the whole aim and scope of this clause had been very clearly defined by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who a short time ago had said that they were going to reward those who had broken the law while those who had obeyed the law were to be turned out to starve. The hon. Member for South Tyrone at a meeting the other day had stated that he(Mr. Corbett) had changed his views on the question of compulsory purchase. "No."] He had not changed his views, and he was very glad that the hon. Member had not meant to taunt him with having done so. At all events the hon. Member had interrupted him during his speech by throwing that taunt across the floor of the House. He had not changed his views, and he was still prepared to carry out compulsion to give full effect to the Act of 1903. But he did not confine the benefits of compulsion as the hon. Member for South Tyrone did to dishonest men. They felt that they had to protect the tenants of the North of Ireland and the honest tenants in the South and West of Ireland; but this proposal went far to paralyse the normal working of the Act of 1903. The right hon. Gentleman must know even with his short acquaintance with Ireland that contracts had been entered into between landlords and tenants for the sale of approaching to £50,000,000 worth of land in Ireland. Some £20,000,000 had already been provided, and they were simply waiting for the remaining
  568
  £30,000,000, which was wanted to carry out these contracts between honest men who had done their duty and the landlords who were willing to sell. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where are they?"] Where were they? They were throughout all Ireland. The work of carrying out these contracts was going to be stopped by giving a preference to men who a quarter of a century ago were turned out of their farms because they would not pay their rents. The hon. Member for South Tyrone laughed, but he knew that the facts were exactly as he had stated them. He had quoted the words of the hon. Member, and he had a long string of quotations from speeches of the hon. Gentleman in his pocket. What they proposed to do in behalf of these men was most iniquitous; if they wanted to do anything for them let the State do it and do it generously, but let them not interfere with the working of the Act of 1903, or with the carrying out of that for which great numbers of tenants were anxiously waiting—men to whom the hon. Member for South Tyrone used to promise the fulfilment of their hopes, but with whom he was now going to interfere in behalf of another class.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, to leave out Clause 1."—(Mr. Craig.)
  Question proposed, "That the clause down to the word 'land' in line 6 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid the hon. Member had stated that under the Act of 1903 those for whom they legislated were the political evicted tenants, or the Plan of Campaign tenants. The hon. Gentleman had also stated that of seventeen estates fifteen had been dealt with, and the cases of the evicted on those fifteen estates had been settled. He ventured to say that when the Land Act of 1903 was going through what the hon. Gentleman had stated was not the fact. As he understood, the bona-fide evicted tenants since 1879 were to be reinstated, if not in their original holdings, in other holdings of an equivalent character. They knew that in 1879 the Plan of Campaign was not started, and

  569
  he ventured to submit that what the hon. Gentleman had stated was not the fact.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he did not deny that they had now to deal with evicted tenants of all sorts. He had only said that at the time of the passing of the Act of 1903 very few persons realised that they had to deal with a very large number of non-political evicted tenants. What they had thought was that they had only to deal with the Plan of Campaign tenants.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid he differed from the hon Member. They knew that a great number of these evicted tenant cases had not been settled, and that for four years negotiations with the Commissioners and their inspectors had been going on. Many of the landlords would not consent to the reinstatement of their tenants, and there were many farms in the occupation of "grabbers" which the holders would not give up, although under the Act of 1903 the Estates Commissioners had power to grant them compensation. To settle this question by compulsion was, therefore, absolutely necessary. He wished to congratulate the Chief Secretary upon the courageous manner in which he had tackled the question. He hoped the measure would pass into law as it stood, and if it did it would bring happiness to a most deserving class, and peace and prosperity to Ireland.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid that if he lived to be a hundred he would never be able to understand the notion which some hon. Gentlemen opposite had of what constituted debate. The objections which had now been stated had been repeated over and over again in the course of the proceedings on this Bill. and he was much more impressed by them the first time he heard them than the last. The hon. Member opposite said it afforded him great pleasure to re-register his protest against the Bill. There was, however, only one way of discussing a Bill properly, and that was to proceed from point to point, and after making them clear proceed to other points and state their objections to them.
  570
  Hon. Members opposite had their own conception of what debate was and their powers, and if they were satisfied by saying the same thing over and over again and derived pleasure from it, of course the Government were powerless in the matter, and the Bill would go to another place with a number of its clauses undiscussed. Those clauses might have been discussed that evening. Why did not hon. Members proceed to other points? There were other matters which admitted of, and were deserving of, discussion, and on which Amendments might perhaps be accepted. By-and-bye it would be said that a number of the clauses had not been discussed at all, but they might have discussed them that evening.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman ought not to confine himself to the clause.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid the right hon. Gentleman was replying to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. BIRRELL: I will say no more.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the right hon. Gentleman had had much experience in other walks of life, but not a very long experience of passing Bills through that House.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have never had anything like this.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid it was all very well for the Chief Secretary to lecture the Opposition for the time they had taken up in discussing this measure so far, but he knew perfectly well that the Government had made the closure a necessary part of their policy in carrying legislation. Therefore it was idle to talk about adequate time having been allowed for discussion. Nobody deplored more than he did any legislation which was not adequately discussed, but adequate discussion was rendered impossible under the system adopted by the Government. There was only one way of proceeding under the closure, and that was for the Government to constitute themselves the sole judges as to what it was

  571
  necessary to discuss and what not. The right hon. Gentleman said they had been discussing points which were of no importance, and had repeated over and over again the same arguments. He himself had been Minister in charge of a Bill more than once, and he never felt so sick as he did when the Opposition repeated arguments which he felt had weight and which he had difficulty in answering. What the right hon. Gentleman objected to was not speeches which he could answer, but the repetition of arguments which he admitted himself had some weight the first time he heard them, but had since lost their weight by repetition. If an argument had force the first time it was used surely it did not lose its force by repetition. Hon. Members below the gangway said the Opposition were opposing this Bill because they were opposed to the reinstatement of the evicted tenants. [NATIONALIST cries of "Hear, hear!"] He made no complaint of that argument, because in politics as in other things different ways of fighting were justifiable. The Unionist Members were not opposing this Bill because they were opposed to the reinstatement of the evicted tenants. On the contrary, they accepted the view that the evicted tenants were to be reinstated, and the majority of his friends had not denied that it might be necessary to resort to compulsion in certain cases. But that did not mean that any form of compulsion exercised in any way was justified just because there was need of some compulsory powers. Two things ought to be proved—first, that compulsory powers were needed in order to meet a public need, and, secondly, that they would be exercised with such precautions as would secure justice for those against whom they would be exercised, as well as justice for those in whose favour they would be exercised. Clause 1 gave a right for compulsory powers to be exercised by a Department of the Irish Government without control, without appeal, and without any limitation. They were quite justified in saying that by this Bill they were conferring powers of an unprecedented character. Not one precedent for such compulsory powers
  572
  had been given except by the hon. and learned Member for Louth, who alluded to a private Bill dealing with a certain part of London. The right hon. Gentleman complained that the Opposition had been repeating arguments over and over again. Certainly they had repeated arguments, and nobody denied it. The point upon which they had repeated them was the main principle of the Bill, and the rest of the measure consisted of comparatively small and unimportant matters relating to machinery. By this Bill they were conferring unlimited powers upon the Estates Commissioners. He had never said a word against the members of that Commission, for he had always held that every permanent official should be safe from attack in the House of Commons. Whenever he had had to speak of the action of civil servants he had never attacked them. The permanent officials could not stand up in that House and defend themselves. He had pointed out, however, that these particular public servants were in an exceptional position. They could act independently, as it were, and they could give expression to opinions such as those quoted earlier in the debate.. That necessarily exposed them to the criticism of those who did not believe that their opinions were well founded. It was to these men that exceptional powers were to be given. If these officials were given further powers without any control from the Administration, the Government could not complain if the conduct of these officials was made the subject of criticism in that House. The Opposition believed that these compulsory powers should be in the hands of an independent tribunal, subject to the administration, who could answer for them; and secondly, that these powers should be surrounded by such limitations as would secure that those who appeared before the tribunal should have the right of presenting their case. That right was denied under this Bill. He resented the charge which had been made by a Nationalist Member that the Opposition wished to keep this question of evicted tenants alive for political purposes, and in order to attack the Nationalist Party in Ireland. He did not blame hon. Members below the gangway for fighting

  573
  hard, but such an attack was utterly unworthy of any opponents, no matter how strong their views might be. The Opposition believed that the evicted tenants should be put back under certain limitations and under certain conditions, but to say that because they held these views they were bound to accept this Bill without discussion, for that was what it amounted to, was to make a preposterous demand, and, although the Opposition were small in number, they would nevertheless persist in opposition to the measure, and they would be in no way deterred by the criticisms of the Chief Secretary, which they believed to be as unfounded as they believed their own attitude to be thoroughly justified.
  MR. A. ROCHEthought he could claim to have more personal experience on the question of the evicted tenants, and particularly those in connection with the Clanricarde estate, than any other man in or out of Parliament. What was the condition of affairs there at the present moment? There were between fifty and sixty families still unsettled in connection with the Clanricarde estate. During all the years which had passed since they were evicted there had never been more than eight new tenants or planters on the estate. The 'holdings which were formerly occupied by the evicted tenants had been grouped together to form larger farms for the planters. These tenants had been described as industrious, hard working, and reliable men, but he would point out that some of them had left the estate without paying the rent for the years they had been in occupation of the farms, and the remainder had run away, not only in debt to Lord Clanricarde, but to others from whom they had obtained credit. There were tenants in other districts also, who had been served with writs on account of the rent being unpaid, and others had received notice to quit. He maintained that unless the Estates Commissioners had compulsory powers to acquire land, it would be utterly impossible to deal with the estates of Lord Clanricarde and certain other landlords. There were other districts in the neighbourhood a which exactly similar conditions pre-ailed. Some planters had been cleared
  574
  out, others had writs for rent served upon them, and others had received notice to quit. He maintained that it would be the duty of the Government to come to the relief of these men with compulsory power, so that they should get something for clearing out.
  MR. BARRIEsaid he had an Amendment to this clause dealing with tenanted as compared with untenanted land. He was anxious that the compulsory powers under the clause should be limited to untenanted land. They were all aware that the Commissioners had stated that 80,000 acres of land would be necessary to reinstate the evicted tenants. He most respectfully submitted that the Government should very seriously consider whether they were warranted in taking the large powers which they claimed under this Bill. They had heard many descriptions as to the worthlessness of the planter tenants. It was no part of his duty to say that all the planters were eligible agriculturists, but many of them had proved themselve, to be so. They had tilled their farms in a manner satisfactory to their landlords, and he felt that it was very revolutionary that a measure should be passed to take from them the farms which they were properly cultivating and hand them over to those of whom the less the House heard the better. Certainly they would not be better farmers than those whom they were to dispossess. Under the Land Purchase Act of 1905, no fewer than 150,000 tenants had already become by voluntary arrangement the owners of the soil which they cultivated, but if they took another section who had not been able to purchase under the provisions of that Act, and reinstated them in their old holdings, they would be putting the latter in a better position than the honest tenants. That was neither the spirit nor the intention of the Act of 1903. He had always maintained that compulsion would have to come for the balance of the tenants not yet reinstated, but he was now speaking of the rent-paying tenants who had fulfilled all their honourable obligations. He supported the Amendment in the interests of his constituent, who were largely composed of tenant farmers.
  Question put
  The House divided:—Ayes, 296; Noes, 82. (Division..List No. 335.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Delany, William

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Agnew, George William

  Dewar, Sir J.A. (Inverness-sh.

  Jowett. F. W.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Joyce. Michael

  Alden, Percy

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kearley. Hudson E.

  Allen,A.Acland (Christchurch)

  Duffy, William J.

  Kekewich.Sir George

  Ambrose, Robert

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Kennedy. Vincent Paul

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Kilbride. Denis

  Astbury, John Meir

  Dunne,Major E.Martin (Wals'll

  King. Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Laidlaw. Robert

  Baker,Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

  Elibank, Master of

  Lambert, George

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Erskine, David C.

  Lamont. Norman

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Evans. Samuel T.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Barker, John

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Barnes, G. N.

  Fenwick, charles

  Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Barry,Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Levy. Sir Maurice

  Bell, Richard

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Bellairs. Carlyon

  Findlay, Alexander.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Benn,Sir J.WilliamsDevonp'rt

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lough, Thomas

  Benn,W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lundon. W.

  Bennett, E . N.

  Foster. Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lupton. Arnold

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Luttrell. Hugh Fownes

  Bethell, SirJ.H.(Essex,Romf'd

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lynch. H. B.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon

  Gilhooly, James

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Gill. A.H.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Gladstone,Rt.Hn. Herbert John

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Boland, John

  Glover, Thomas

  MacNeill. John Gordon Swift

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  MacVeagh,Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Bowerman, C W.

  Grant, Corrie

  MacVeigh. Charles (Donegal,E.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Grayson, Albert Victor

  M'Callum, John M.

  Brigg, John

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Crae, George

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  M'Kean. John

  Brunner,J.F.L. (Lanes., Leigh)

  Gulland, John W.

  M'Killop, W.

  Brunner.Rt. Hn.Sir J. T. (Ches.

  Gurdon,Rt.Hn.SirWBrampton

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Gwynn. Stephen Lucius

  Maddison. Frederick

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Mallet. Charles E.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Halpin, J.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hammond, John

  Marks, G.Croydon (Launceston

  Cameron, Robert

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Marnham, F. J.

  Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Massie, J.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Meagher, Michael

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Cherry. Rt, Hon. R. R.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Clough, William

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Montagu, E. S.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Mooney, J. J.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Henderson. Arthur (Durham)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W.

  Henderson,J.M. (Aberdeen, W.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Morrell. Philip

  Cooper, G. J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morse L. L.

  Cornwall. Sir Edwin A.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hodge, John

  Murnaghan, George

  Cox, Harold

  Hogan. Michael

  Murphy. John

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Holden. E. Hopkinson

  Murray, James

  Crean, Eugene

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Myer. Horatio

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Napier. T. B.

  Crooks. William

  Hudson, Walter

  Nolan, Joseph

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O' Brien,Kendal (TipperaryMid

  Crossley, William J.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Brien. Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cullinan, J.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Davies,David (Montgomery Co.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry. W.)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Grady. J.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  O'Kelly,.James(Roscommon,N.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Jones, Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea

  O'Malley, William

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Ure, Alexander

  O'Shee, James John

  Rowlands, J.

  Verney, P. W.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Russell, T. W.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Partington, Oswald

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Pearson, Sir W. (Colchester)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Wardle, George J.

  Pearson,W.H.M. (Suffolk,Eye)

  Sears, J. E.

  Waring, Walter

  Philipps,Col.Ivor (S'thampton)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Wason,RtHn.E. (Clackmannan

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Seddon, J.

  Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Watt, Henry A.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Sherwell, Arthur.James

  Weir, James Galloway

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh,Centr'l

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  White, J. D.(Dumbartonshire)

  Radford, G. H.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Smeaton, Donald,Mackenzie

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)|

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Snowden, P.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wiles, Thomas

  Reddy, M.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Wills. Arthur Walters

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.

  Richards, T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh., N.)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Winfrey, R.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Robertson,Sir G.Scott (Bradf'd

  Tennant,Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Thompson,J. W. H.(Somerset,E.

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Thorne, William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Toulmin, George

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood,Rt.Hn.Sir Alex.F

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Pease,Herbert Pike)Darlington

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Ashley, W. W.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hn.Sir H.

  Duncan,Robert (Lanark,G'v'n

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Balcarres, Lord

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Balfour,Rt.Hn.A.J.(City Lond.

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fell, Arthur

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry.N.)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Scott, Sir S. (Marvlebone, W.)

  Beach, Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford,East

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Smith,F.E . (Liverpool, Walton

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Gretton, John

  Starkey, John R.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hardy,Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Bull, Sir William James

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hervey,F.W.F. (Bury S.Ed'ds

  Thomson, W.Mitchell- (Lanark

  Carlile, B. Hildred

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hunt, Rowland

  Vincent, Col Sir C. E. Howard

  Cave, George

  Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hon.Col.W.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire

  Cavendish,Rt.Hon.VictorC.W.

  Keswick, William

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Lockwood, Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.A.R.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Long,Rt.Hn.Walter (Dublin,S.

  Wortley, Rt, Hon. C. B.Stuart-

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Coates, E.Feetham (Lewisham)

  Lyttelton, Rt, Hon. Alfred

  Younger, George

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES —Mr. Charles Craig and Mr. Lonsdale.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Nield, Herbert

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  And, it being half-past Ten of the clock, MR. Speaker proceeded, pursuant to the order of the House of 22nd July, successively to put forthwith the Question upon any Amendments moved by
  the Government of which notice had been given.
  Amendment made—
  "In page 1, line 6, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'and if they have offered

  579
  to the person appearing to them to be the owner of the land a price which appears to them to represent the fair market value there of, and he has not within the prescribed time accepted the offer.' "—(Mr. Birrell.)
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  " In page 1, line 14, after ' 1903,' to insert the words ' who, or whose predecessors, were evicted from their holdings before the passing
  of the said Act in consequence of proceedings taken by or on behalf of their landlords and ' "—(Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.)
  Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 301; Noes, 84. (Division List No. 336.)

  AYES

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Haldane. Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Acland-Hood,Rt.Hn.Sir AlexF.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Harcourt. Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Agnew, George William

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hardy,Laurence (Kent,Ashf'rd

  Alden, Percy

  Clough, William

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Allen,A.Acland (Christchurch)

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Astbury, John Meir

  Collins,SirWm.J. (S.Pancras,W

  Henderson,J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)

  Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hon. SirH

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

  Hervey,F.W.F.(BuryS.Edmd's

  Baker,Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Balfour,RtHnA.J.(City

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A,

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hobhousc, Charles E. H.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Cox, Harold

  Holland. Sir William Henry

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Barker, John

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Barrie,H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Crossley, William J.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Barry,Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Beach,Hn.Hichael Hugh Hicks

  Davies, David (MontgomeryCo

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Beauchamp, E.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Jones, SirD Brynmor(Swansea

  Bell, Richard

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Benn,Sir J.Williams(Devonp'rt

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Bennett, E. N.

  Duncan,Robert(Lanark,Govan

  Keswick, William

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Bertram. Julius

  Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford

  Bethell,SirJ.H.(Essex,Romf'rd

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Laidlaw. Robert

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Erskine, David C.

  Lambert, George

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lamont, Norman

  Black, Arthur W.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lane-Fox. G. R.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Leese, Sir JosephF.(Accrington

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Fell, Arthur

  Levy. Sir Maurice

  Brigg, John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Bright, J. A.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lloyd-George, Rt, Hon. David

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lockwood. Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.A.R

  Brunner,J. F. L. (Lancs.,Leigh)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Long, Rt. Hn.Walter (Dublin,S

  Brunner,RtHnSirJ.T.(Cheshire

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lonsdale. John Brownlee

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Lough. Thomas

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Forster, Henry William

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Bull, Sir William James

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lupton. Arnold

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Cameron, Robert

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lyttelton. Rt, Hon. Alfred

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

  Mackarness. Frederic C.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Callum, John M.

  Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

  Grant, Corrie

  M'Crae. George

  Cave, George

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Cavendish,Rt,Hon.Victor C.W.

  Gretton, John

  Maddison. Frederick

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Mallet. Charles E.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gulland, John W.

  Manfield. Harry (Northants)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Gurdon,RtHn.Sir W.Brampton

  Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Massie, J.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.

  Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Roberts,S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall

  Thompson, J.W.H(Somerset,E

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Rose, Charles Day

  Toulmin, George

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Rowlands, J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Montagu, E: S.

  Runciman, Walter

  Turnour, Viscount

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Russell, T. W.

  Ure, Alexander

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Verney, F. W.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Morrell, Philip

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Morse, L. L.

  Samuel, HerbertL.(Cleveland)

  Walker, Col. W.H. (Lancashire

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Murray, James

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Myer, Horatio

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Waring, Walter

  Napier, T. B.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wason, Rt.Hn.E(Clackmannan

  Nield, Herbert

  Sears, J. E.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Watt, Henry A.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Whitbread, Howard

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Partington, Oswald

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Shipman. Dr. John G.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Whitley. John Henry (Halifax)

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wiles, Thomas

  Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York. E.R.)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton

  Wilson, Henry J.(York,W. R.)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Winfrey, R.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Wodehonse, Lord

  Radford, G. H.

  Starkey, John R.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Stewart-Smith. D. (Kendal)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Rawlinson, JohnFrederick Peel

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Younger, George

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Rees, J. D.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Sutherland, J. E .

  Pease

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Hammond, John

  Murnaghan, George

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Murphy, John

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Nolan, Joseph

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

  Boland, John

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hodge, John

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Grady, J.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Malley, William

  Cooper, G. J.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Crean, Euguene

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Shee, James John

  Crooks, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cullinan, J.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Kilbride, Denis

  Price, C.E.(Edinb'gh. Central)

  Delany, William

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Reddy, M.

  Duffy, William J.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lundon, W.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Richards, T.F(Wolverh'mpt'n

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Gilhooly, James

  MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Kean, John

  Seddon, J.

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Killop, W.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Grayson, Albert Victor

  Meagher, Michael

  Sheehy, David

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Snowden, P.

  Halpin, J.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  582

  583

  Thorne, William

  Wilkie, Alexander

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Wardle. George J.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Captain Donelan and Mr.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Patrick O'Brien.

  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 9, at the end, to insert the words, 'For the purposes of this enactment a person shall be deemed to be a tenant notwithstanding that he may have agreed to purchase his holding, if the agreement was entered into after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and seven, and if the holding has not
  become vested in him as a purchaser under the Land Purchase Acts.' "—(Mr. Birrell.)
  Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 310; Noes, 89. (Division List No. 337.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Agnew, George William

  Cornwall. Sir Edwin A.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Alden, Percy

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Crean, Eugene

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Henderson. Arthur (Durham)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Crooks. William

  Henderson,J.M. (Aberdeen,W.]

  Astbury, John Meir

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Crossley, William J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cullinan, J.

  Hobhouse. Charles E. H.

  Baring. Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Hodge, John

  Barker, John

  Davies,David(MontgomeryCo.)

  Hogan, Michael

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Barnes. G. N.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Delany, William

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Barry,Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Horniman. Emslie John

  Beauchamp, E.

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Bell, Richard

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Benn,Sir J.Williams(Devonp'rt

  Duffy, William J.

  Illingworth. Percy H.

  Benn. W. (T'W'r Hamlets,S. Geo.

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

  Isaacs. Rufus Daniel

  Bennett, E. N.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall

  Jenkins. J.

  Bertram, Julius

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Johnson. W. (Nuneaton)

  Bethell,Sir J.H.(Essex,Romf'rd

  Elibank, Master of

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea)

  Bethell, T. R, (Essex, Maldon)

  Erskine, David C.

  Jones. Leif (Appleby)

  Birrell, Rt, Hon. Augustine

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Jordan. Jeremiah

  Black. Arthur W.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Jowett, F.W.

  Boland, John

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Joyce, Michael

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Ferens. T. R.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Brigg, John

  Findlay, Alexander

  Kilbride. Denis

  Bright, J. A.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Brunner, J. F. L.(Lancs.,Leigh)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Laidlaw. Robert

  Brunner,RtHnSirJ.T.(Cheshire

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Lambert, George

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lamont, Norman

  Buckmaster. Stanley O.

  Gibb. James (Harrow)

  Lardner. James Carrige Rushe

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gilhooly. James

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Burt, Rt, Hon. Thomas

  Gill. A. H.

  Layland- Barratt. Francis

  Byles, William Pollard

  Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

  Leese,Sir JosephF.(Accrington)

  Cameron, Robert

  Glover, Thomas

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Grant, Corrie

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Channing, Sir Franc is Allston

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Gulland, John W.

  Lough. Thomas

  Cherry, Rt, Hon. R. R.

  Gurdon,Rt.Hn.SirW.Brampton

  Lundon, W.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Lupton, Arnold

  Clough, William

  Haldane, Rt, Hon. Richard B.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Clynes, J. R.

  Halpin, J.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hammond, John

  Lynch. H. B.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Collins,Sir Wm.J.(S.Pancras,W

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. Wore r)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal, E.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  M'Crae, George

  Pollard, Dr.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  M'Kean. John

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  M'Killop, W.

  Price,C.E.(Edinburgh, Central)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Radford, G. H.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Rea,Walter Russel (Scarboro')

  Tennant,Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Reddy, M.

  Thompson, J. W.H(Somerset,E.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Thorne, William

  Massie, J.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Meagher, Michael

  Rees, J. D.

  Toulmin, George

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Richards,T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)

  Ure, Alexander

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Verney, F . W.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Mooney, J. J.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Robertson,Sir G.Scott(Bradf'rd

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wardle, George J.

  Morrell. Philip

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Waring, Walter

  Morse, L. L.

  Roche. John (Galway, East)

  Wason,Rt.Hn.E.(Clackmanann

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Rogers, F . E. Newman

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Murnaghan, George

  Rose, Charles Day

  Watt, Henry A.

  Murphy, John

  Rowlands, J.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Murray, James

  Runciman, Walter

  Whitbread, Howard

  Myer, Horatio

  Russell, T. W.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Napier, T. B.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  White, Patrick (Meath. North)

  O' Brien,Kendal (TipperaryMid

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wiles, Thomas

  O'Connor, John (Kildare; N.)

  Sears, J. E.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Seddon, J.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  O'Grady, J.

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

  Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh., N.

  O'Malley, William

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sheehy, David

  Winfrey, R.

  O'Shee, James John

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wodehouse. Lord

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Partington, Oswald

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Whitley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Snowden, P.

  Pearson,W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Soames. Arthur Wellesley

  Philipps,Col.Ivor (S'thampton)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood,Rt.Hn.SirAlex.F.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hervey,F. W.F.(BuryS.Edmd's)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Coates,E.Feetham (Lewisham)

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt,Hon.SirH.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A. E.

  Hills, J. W.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Keswick, William

  Banner. John S. Harmood-

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lambton. Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lockwood,Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.A.R.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Douglas. Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Long,Rt.Hon.Walter (Dublin,S

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Duncan,Robert(Lanark, Govan

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Bull, Sir William James

  Pell, Arthur

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Cave, George

  Forster, Henry William

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Cavendish, Rt.Hn.Victor C. W.

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gretton, John

  Nield, Herbert

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashf'rd)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  586

  587

  Pease,HerbertPike)Darlington)

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Starkey, John R.

  Wilson,A.Stanely(York,E.R)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffsh.)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Rawlinson, JohnFrederick Peel

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Worthy, Rt, Hon C. B. stuart-

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wyndham. Rt Hon.George

  Roberts,S.(Sheffield,Ecclesall)

  Thomson,W.Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Younger, George

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Turnour, Viscount

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Valentia, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES —

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Viscount Castlereagh and Mr. George Faber.

  Smith,Abel H. (Hertford,East)

  Walker, Col.W.H. (Lancashire)

  Smith, F. E.(Liverpool,Walton)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

  Amendment made—
  "In page 3, line 27, after the word 'serve,' to insert the words 'in the prescribed manner.' "—(Mr. Cherry.)
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

  CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL.
  Order read, for resuming adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to thy Bill on Consideration, as amended (be the Standing Committee) [July 19th].
  Which Amendment was—
  "In page 3, line 1, to leave out paragraph (6) of Clause 3."—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words 'with the leave of the' stand part of the Bill."
  MR, AKERS-DOUGLASthought there was a general opinion in the House in. favour of an appeal on a question of law. His hon. and learned friend the Member for Cambridge University argued this matter out very ably upon the last occasion when the Bill was considered, and he did not think they could make much progress with the debate until they had heard the view of the Government upon the point. He asked the Attorney-General to say whether he was prepared to accept the Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Walton, Leeds, S.)said thas the aim of this Bill was to establish an effective tribunal of review; to constitute a Court of Appeal, and then to confine it within hard legal limits would entirely destroy its usefulness. To say that the Court should hear arguments on points of law, and treat all findings of fact as conclusively
  588
  established, would be to reduce the Court to futility. The effort to discriminate between questions of fact and questions of law was legally, if not intellectually, impossible. The two regions of law and. fact were so closely intermingled that to attempt to discriminate would seriously hamper the efforts of the tribunal they were creating under this Bill. If this Amendment were made, and if the Court came to the conclusion that there was no evidence in support of a particular proposition, they would have to quash the conviction. But if they came to the conclusion that there was some evidence, however untrustworthy and insufficient, they would be compelled to sustain the verdict. All such matters as the misapprehension of the Judges, and the misleading of the jury, that made criminal trials sometimes unsatisfactory and that were every day considered by the Home Secretary, would be excluded from the purview of the Court.
  *MR. CLAVELL SALTERsaid he desired to place before the House one ground on which he was resolutely opposed to any appeal on facts, as distinguished from law, in criminal cases. Putting aside all the many other legal reasons which could be urged with considerable strength against an appeal on fact, the one ground which conclusively weighed with him was the effect which he was satisfied it could not fail to have on the attitude with which a jury would approach the trial of any doubtful case. At present it was the undoubted and happy fact that juries in this country in criminal cases did in fact acquit in doubtful cases. It was always said that they did so because they were so instructed by the Judge, but he was quite satisfied himself that the reason why juries invariably acquitted in doubtful cases was not in the least because they were instructed to do so

  589
  by the Judge, but because it was the easiest and most natural course for them to take in the circumstances. If they imagined a jury debating a doubtful case, it was obvious that those of the jury who were in favour of acquittal must ultimately prevail against those who were inclined to a more serious view. The main reason was that the verdict they were about to pronounce was a final verdict. If the verdict they were about to pronouce was not to be final, not only did they remove the present tendency to acquittal, but they substituted for it a very strong tendency to convict. They enlisted on the side of conviction that very tendency to take the line of least resistance which now produced the tendency to acquit. The jury would say to themselves:" If in this case we acquit our verdict is final. Half our number are inclined to think that the man has been proved to be guilty, and that if we let. him off we shall be failing in our public duty. That will be the result if we acquit; but that will not be the result if we convict. The man will not go to prison except for a day or two, after which he will be out on bail running about preparing his defence. The question which is puzzling us as to his guilt or innocence will be shifted from our shoulders on to the broader shoulders of gentlemen in London who exist for the purpose of settling these knotty points." That was the way in which a jury would argue so soon as a one-sided appeal on fact was allowed—an appeal open to the accused, but not open to the prosecution. It was because he was satisfied it would produce that result, and, in so doing, take away an all -important safeguard which we had in our criminal administration at the present time that he should persist to the last in his opposition to any attempt to introduce an appeal on fact.
  LORD R. CECILsaid he had the misfortune to differ from his hon. and learned friend on this point, and he trusted that the Government would adhere to the provision in the Bill. He personally had a very limited admiration for trial by jury. He had never thought that trial by jury was a particularly good method of arriving at the truth in many cases.
  590
  It had its advantages, because it diminished the responsibility; it divided the responsibility that rested on any individual man by twelve, and that was an advantage, at any rate, when they had to deal with serious matters. It had other advantages of a technical nature which he need not describe. He doubted whether a jury were ruled by the elaborate and scientific reasoning which necessarily appealed to his hon. and learned friend. They did not consider, he did not suppose that they knew, whether their verdict was or was not final. What they would consider was the effect which the evidence made upon them, and the effect, possibly in a lesser degree, of counsel's speeches, but the most important effect upon them was that produced by the presiding Judge in summing up. Therefore, if they wanted to arrive at what the result of the change proposed by the Attorney-General would be, they must consider much more what would be the effect on the Judge of setting up a Court of Appeal than upon the jury. His opinion was that the fact that there was an appeal in cases where there was a conviction would be to make the Judge more careful in advising a jury to convict than at present. A Judge disliked to have his judgments reversed on appeal, and he would not care in criminal cases to have convictions quashed on appeal. He did not say that this would make any impartial man keep awake at night, but it would make a Judge more careful than at present not to run the risk of convicting a man if there was any reasonable doubt of his guilt. Therefore the effect of the Bill would be to make the Judge more careful and not to have an appreciable effect on the jury. Might he enter a slight protest against the phrase "tendency to acquit"? After all, it was not their object to have a tendency to acquit or a tendency to convict; it was their object to get a perfectly fair decision. He believed the appeal would be quite as valuable on matters of fact as on matters of law, and he should support the Bill as it at present stood.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: said that he understood the Attorney-General to say that it was quite impossible to discriminate between questions of fact and

  591
  questions of law. He asked tow, if that was the case, at the present moment it was possible to discriminate between questions of law and fact in cases of appeal to Quarter Sessions?
  SIR JOHN WALTONwas understood to say that the tribunal to be established would be an efficient tribunal of review. In civil cases there were rules by which a discrimination was made between questions of fact and questions of law; but it would destroy the whole value of the new tribunal if those rules were made applicable to criminal cases.
  *SIR W. ANSONsaid he was by no means averse to an appeal on matters of fact subject to limitations. If this Amendment were carried the Government would have to limit and define the right so as to secure that it would be only in important cases that an appeal on matters of fact should be allowed. The Bill as it stood at present gave a perfectly unlimited right of appeal. He confessed he was surprised to hear the Attorney-General say that it was difficult to distinguish between questions of law and facts in criminal cases. He should have thought that for generations the provinces of the Judge and of the jury were sufficiently distinguishable. The Attorney-General seemed to hold that there was no distinction in principle between cases in which a Judge would now declare that there was no evidence of a particular kind to go to the jury, and cases in which the Court of Appeal might lay it down that there was not sufficient evidence to convict the prisoner. These were two quite different things. In one case the Judge defined the crime and settled a question of law; in the other the Court considered the amount and value of evidence and decided a question of fact. He did not agree that an appeal on matters of fact was desirable unless in special circumstances. What effect, he asked, would this measure have on the responsibility of the Judge and the jury? His noble friend said that the main responsibility was with the Judge when he came to sum up. No doubt there was a great deal of responsibility on a Judge in summing up; but he maintained that the jury likewise possessed a heavy sense
  592
  of responsibility in coming to their decision, because they knew that it would be final. But if the jury knew that the whole matter would come up for revision before the Court of Criminal Appeal, whether they were right or wrong, they would have a comfortable sense that, if they went wrong, no great harm would ensue. His objection to this right of appeal to a new tribunal was that it was indiscriminate. He thought that it was a pity this matter had been taken up by lawyers engaged usually in important cases of the character of causes célébres, and not in small criminal business.
  SIR JOHN WALTONsaid that he had practised at Quarter Sessions for seven years, and he ought to know.
  *SIR W. ANSONmaintained that the Bill as it stood gave a perfectly unlimited and therefore a dangerous right of appeal. He did not agree that appeals in matters of fact were desirable unless in special circumstances. Would the Court of Criminal Appeal be effective if at the outset it was clogged with an enormous number of appeals? He could not help feeling that this general offer of an appeal would be taken advantage of by every class of criminal and not merely by those concerned in important and intricate cases worthy of the consideration of the Court. If that was so, then though there might be three Courts, and it was possible for them to sit at the same time, they would have their hands full of business, and appeals would be delayed and the other business in which these Judges should have been employed would be set aside. Thus they would not merely weaken the responsibility of juries, but they would damage the character of the Court at the outset from the delays that would ensue.
  MR. J. O'CONNORsaid the House had witnessed a very pretty duel between the man of theory and the man of practice. He thought their decision should be in favour of the man of practice. The hon. Member for Oxford University had admitted that he would be in favour of a Court of Appeal if there were limitations. He ventured to point out that there was a very serious limitation which was appeal

  593
  for leave to appeal. There was no reason why the distinction between law and fact should be maintained any longer because it could, and would, be got rid of from time to time. This Amendment was supported by hon. Members who had prepared hundreds of notices of appeal, and in every case they had been able to convert questions of fact into questions of law. The clause gave the protection asked for by the Member for Oxford University in the limitation contained in the words "with the leave of the Court of Criminal Appeal."
  MR. LYTTELTON(St. George's, Hanoversquare),said he was strongly in favour of the Amendment. He had really heard no answer throughout these debates to the unworkable and costly character of this measure if appeals on the facts were to remain in. Unworkability and costliness had been brushed aside in these debates as being of no weight as compared with justice and clemency, and if it were a fact that an appeal to the Court of Appeal would be in favour of the convicted man, and in favour of clemency, he agreed that those arguments should be thrust aside. But his firm conviction was that the present form of criminal law was all in favour of the convicted man, who not only had all the advantage which arose from the rigidity of the system with regard to evidence in the Court, but all the advantage of the less rigid and more flexible system of the inquiry by the Home Office. The suggestion was made by learned Judges that the criminal should have the right of referring these questions to a Court of law and that the public should have an opportunity of demanding some explanation. That was what was done in the case of Mr. Beck. He did not press too much the unanimous judgment of the Judges on the point, but what he proposed was that they should try this plan and see if it would abate public dissatisfaction, before they sent all these cases which dealt with questions of fact to a Court of Criminal Appeal, took the risk of making our present system unworkable and giving rise to the scandals which arose from delay in trials in America and elsewhere by reason of time being taken up in appeal. He believed that the course proposed would
  594
  diminish the responsibility of both Judge and jury and that it would be shaken. His noble friend began by saying that he had very little opinion of or admiration for juries, but then he did not seem to have an overwhelming admiration for Judges either, because he seemed to suggest that in future they would, if this Bill were passed, conduct criminal trials with more care because of the fear of their decisions being reversed. For himself, however, he thought that a criminal case doubled the attention of the tribunal because the result was final. That fact had a great effect upon both juries and Judges, He thought that by this Bill they were running a great risk of diminishing that sense of responsibility. Nobody with knowledge of human nature, who had had the experience of criminal trials, would deny that at the close of a long sitting and at the end of a complicated case, if this Bill were passed there would not be that shrinking from finding a connection between the prisoner and the crime where there was an element of doubt that there now was, as there would be the knowledge that the decision would be open to revision. He therefore supported the Amendment.
  *MR. PICKERSGILLthought the Government were well advised in giving the Bill the wide scope that they had given it. Some years ago he himself had introduced a Court of Criminal Appeal Bill into the House, which was based on the recommendation of the Judges, but in the course of the debate it became clear that even the House of Commons of that day was in favour of a wider Bill.
  MR. LANE-FOXsaid that at the present moment behind the jury they had the Home Secretary, who was able to sift the evidence in a case by whatever means he pleased, and he thought that that position of things was better than would be secured by the possession of a Court of Criminal Appeal. At present the Home Secretary was not bound by any rules of evidence as a Court of Criminal Appeal would be. Of course a good deal depended upon who was Home Secretary,

  595
  and no doubt it was a great responsibility to put upon one individual, but it seemed to him that if a man in the position of Home Secretary entered upon the inquiry into these matters without any trammels which would be imposed upon a Court of Criminal Appeal, he would be more able to get at the true inwardness of a case than such a Court would be. There seemed to him to be no power in the Bill under which the Court of Criminal Appeal could hear fresh evidence, but the Home Secretary could, if he desired it, go into fresh evidence and discover from it what the real truth and inwardness of a case was. The question as to the lessening of the responsibility of the jury was a very serious one. It was obvious that their responsibility would be weakened if they knew that they had a Court of Appeal behind them. That was a point of view which had been held by many others, and it certainly impressed itself upon him.
  MR. BOTTOMLEYsaid that on this occasion he found himself in the unique position of being a warm supporter of the Government. The proposal before the House was that there should be an appeal on questions of law only, but as he understood it this right did exist at present, although the Judge might refuse to reserve the point of law for the consideration of the Court for Crown Cases Reserved. All they wanted if the amendment was to be accepted was that the Court for the Consideration of Crown Cases Reserved should have the right by mandamus to compel the people to state a case for their opinion. In that case the present Bill would be unnecessary. But what the country demanded was that a man whose liberty was imperilled should have as much right to appeal as a man who had been mulcted in a £10 note.
  MR. BUCKMASTERsaid he was a confirmed opponent of a principle which allowed an extensive right of appeal on questions of fact. To his mind the division between questions of fact and questions of law was clear and distinct. It was perfectly true that all questions of law must have application to questions of fact, but the principles
  596
  of law that they applied were totally distinct from the facts to which they addressed them, and no better illustration could be given than that which occurred every day in the civil Courts in the findings of fact by a jury, upon which questions of law were argued before the Judge. The distinction was one which was more familiar to the Attorney-General than to any other Member of the House, and he was amazed that the hon. and learned Gentleman should say that the line of distinction between questions of law and questions of fact was so shadowy that it was impossible to distinguish them for the purposes of this Bill. If that were so, why was it that at the present time there was an appeal on questions of law, provided they got the sanction of the Judge, before whom the man was tried, for stating a special case? There was no appeal on questions of fact at all, and no difficulty with which he was acquainted had ever arisen in defining, for the purposes of a special case, the questions of law it was desired to raise. Further, if they took the case, which undoubtedly created a great public sensation, and which he could not help thinking was present to the minds of hon. Gentlemen who were supporting this Bill—the case of Mr. Beck—they would at once find that the distinctions between questions of law and questions of fact were marked in a most prominent way. Had an appeal on questions of fact existed Mr. Beck might have appealed but he would have appealed in vain. He had studied the evidence with some care, and he said without hesitation that there was no lawyer who had ever been acquainted with the work of the Court of Appeal who would have ventured to have advised an appeal on a question of fact in that case. But, had there been an appeal on a question of law, the man would have been free, because the miscarriage of justice was due to the fact that the learned Judge, who was trying the case, mistakenly refused to admit certain evidence that was tendered to him, and declined to state a special case as to whether or not it was admissible. It was purely and simply a question of law entirely divorced and dissociated from any question of fact whatever. If these things were distinct, as he thought they were, then there must be some

  597
  special reasons for the opposition to appeals on questions of fact. These reasons had been stated on previous occasions, and he had never heard an answer to them. It was idle for his hon. and learned friend who sat on the bench opposite to say that the objection to the Bill arose from men of theory and not from men of practice. He greatly doubted if there was in that House a man better acquainted with the practice and administration of the criminal law than the hon. and learned Member for the Kingston division, and yet he believed the hon. Gentleman was as strong an opponent as he was himself of this provision. And again, the hon. and learned Member for the University of Cambridge was a man who had administered the criminal law as Recorder of Cambridge for years past, and he also was opposed to it. The hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken had no mean practical experience of the administration of the criminal law, and he likewise was opposed to it. It was idle to suggest that they were divided in that House between men of practice and men of theory. It was not so, or if it were so, the men of practice were the men who took the same view as he took himself, and he admitted that his view was to some extent tainted by a theoretical and not a practical knowledge. The main objection to this appeal on a question of fact could be stated in a few sentences. There were in all cases, in all sessions and assizes and criminal Courts, clear and distinct classes of cases. There was the case of the man who was clearly innocent and the case of the man who was clearly guilty, and between the two there was a dim and uncertain border, and in the shadows of which it might be that many a guilty man escaped, but in which the innocent were not involved. If they passed this Bill and allowed appeal on questions of fact they would take away those shadows, and the innocent man would run great risk of being convicted, when at the present moment he would undoubtedly escape. Let such a thing arise, and no Court of Appeal would ever set it right. They could not possibly by any Court of Appeal in the world readjust difficult and complicated questions of fact upon which a jury had once pronounced. That was
  598
  the reason which influenced him in opposing the Second Reading of this Bill and in supporting, as he was bound from his conviction to support, the Amendment which the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University had brought forward.
  MR. NIELDsaid the Court of Appeal must at any rate receive an application before it decided whether the appeal was on a question of law or a question of fact. They knew by experience that the jurisdiction which had recently been thrown on the Court of Appeal to hear applications for leave to appeal from chambers or from an inferior Court, or from the Divisional Court, frequently took up a great deal of time; often three-quarters of an hour or an hour was consumed in hearing ex parte applications for leave to appeal. These were cases where they had already had applications made and refused either by Judges in chambers or by whatever was the tribunal from which they appealed. When they regarded for a moment the whole criminal jurisdiction of this country and all the prisoners who would have a right of appeal, he ventured to point out that they would have list upon list occupying this new Appeal Court day by day, in order to ascertain whether there was a prima facie case on which to give leave to appeal in order to get such an investigation of the facts as had hitherto been done perfectly satisfactorily by officials of the Home Office. Therefore, in the interests of public time, they ought to interpose some authority to prevent haphazard appeals which would come up from Quarter Sessions, from every petty sessional bench, and from every Assize Court. The Court would be flooded with applications, and their time would be taken up in each case in deciding whether an appeal was on a question of fact or on a question of law. Anybody who knew the attitude of convicted prisoners knew how frequent were the applications to the Home Office by petition for a revision of the sentences. Those who were acquainted with the facts knew that numbers of prisoners in gaol applied to the Home Office or to the visiting magistrate for revision on the ground that their sentences were wrong; and these cases alone, if they

  599
  were taken to the Court of Appeal, would at once speedily overwhelm it with work, and it was therefore necessary that they should consider the condition of things which would be brought about by this Bill if it were passed as it stood.
  *MR. RUFUS ISAACSsaid the proposition of his right hon. friend. the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, was that this Bill, with this provision as it at present stood, would be unworkable, but he had found it difficult to understand his arguments why it would be unworkable. It should be borne in mind that no appeal could be presented to the Court of Criminal Appeal until that Court had had established to its own satisfaction that a prima facie case had been made out for investigation by that Court. Once that had been established then there was proper subject matter for discussion before the Court of Criminal, Appeal. In a civil case there would be no difficulty. Certain views would have to be presented upon which a discussion would be pronounced. Why should there be any difficulty in applying the same principle in a Court of Criminal Appeal with proper safeguards against' appeals which were frivolous, or vexatious? The Court of Criminal Appeal would take great care, in determining such matters, that a prima facie case was established upon the evidence presented when the application was made.
  MR. LYTTELTONsaid that would very often be a longer job than hearing the case.
  *MR. RUFUS ISAACSsaid he would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman of applications which he had made a great many times based upon similar materials which had to be presented to the Court. In applications of the character he alluded to, the Court did not go at great length into these matters, because counsel had had an opportunity of digesting the facts, and consequently the case was presented to the Court in such a manner that it was not difficult to determine whether a prima facie case had been made out. He submitted to his right hon. friend that there would be no difficulty in the matter. He agreed that
  600
  probably some time would be occupied, but the point was that it would be usefully occupied. It was necessary in criminal cases that there should be some right of appeal to an open Court and not to the Home Secretary, who had to determine cases on material which they never saw. Such appeals should be decided upon material presented to a Court which would deal with the matter judicially, and it was because the Government had come to the conclusion that it was necessary that the same right should be extended in criminal cases, with the limitations imposed as in civil cases, that this clause had been introduced. He submitted that the arguments which had been presented against this section of the Bill made the case of the Government stronger. He had been much struck by the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University, who said that he failed to understand how there would be any difficulty in distinguishing between questions of law and questions of fact. Under this Bill, and in numberless cases which would occur to the hon. and learned Member, the question which might arise was one of mixed law and fact. How in that case would they distinguish between what was law and what was fact? It would at once be seen how difficult it was in some cases to draw the line between the two. He agreed that in a great number of cases there would be no difficulty. There would be the point of law arising upon a certain set of facts, but they might have a set of facts, upon which there would be real difficulty in determining at what precise point the question discussed ceased to be a question of fact and became a question of law It was in order to get over those niceties that this clause had been introduced, so that justice might be done without paying an over-sensitive regard to those rules which applied in civil cases. When an an appeal was given not only on a question: of law but on a question of fact, the Court could pronounce a judgment which would be in accordance with the justice of the case. The Court might come to the conclusion that the law as laid down was right and that the findings as to the facts were wrong. Under this Amendment, in spite of the Court having come to the conclusion that the finding upon a

  601
  question of fact was wrong, although the finding as to law was right, the Court of Criminal Appeal could not interfere to redress that injustice, although every member of the Court was of the same opinion. They ought to remember that this was not a question for lawyers at all, and he protested against its being regarded as a matter upon which lawyers only should speak. They were seeking to establish a safeguard so that no innocent man should be convicted. If they appealed to those who were not already steeped in the practice of the law; if they appealed to the general public and to the minds of jurymen and magistrates the reply would be that if they wished to do justice in a case of criminal appeal they must be able to try both questions of fact and questions of law. The experience of those who had practised in Courts of law was that questions of fact were very often more difficult to determine than questions of law, and the sifting of the evidence upon which a question of fact was to be determined was often a matter of the greatest nicety. It should be borne in mind that the Court of Criminal Appeal must have regard to those rules and principles upon which the Court of Appeal decided in civil cases and consequently there was no danger. He did not think that ultimately there would be many appeals on fact. He was ready to concede that at the outset there might be a number of such appeals. It would be found in criminal cases that appeals on questions of fact, would be dealt with on the same principles as appeals on fact in civil cases. Arguments had been addressed to the House based upon the want of responsibility in juries if once this Criminal Appeal Bill became law. He was astonished to hear an argument which fell from the lips of his right hon. and learned friend the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, who seemed to think that a jury in a criminal case, being anxious to get home, would convict a prisoner—whereas, otherwise they would have acquitted him—because there was a Court of Criminal Appeal which might set the matter right. Surely that was doing a great injustice to jurymen. He ventured to say that the experience of those who practised before juries was that hitherto the juries, if in doubt, would come to the conclusion,
  602
  and rightly so, that the prisoner must be acquitted, not because he must have "the benefit of the doubt"—a very objectionable phrase—but because the prosecution had failed to bring home to the prisoner the guilt which it set out to establish against him. He believed, as he had said, that the argument which had been used did a great injustice to those who sat as jurymen and assisted in the administration of justice in this country. He was convinced that this Bill as presented by the Government would really work justice, and he asked the House to come to that conclusion and to reject the Amendment.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid that the Bill, as the hon. and learned Member on the other side had said, had been before the House on previous occasions, though in a slightly different form. On both those occasions the opinion of the Judges was before the opinion of the House was taken asked for, and, surely, if anybody had practical knowledge of the working of the criminal law the Judges had. He asked hon. Members' could they find a single Judge who was in favour of an unlimited right of appeal? He had put before the House three reasons for adopting the Amendment. The first was that the unlimited right of asking for leave to appeal rendered the Bill unworkable; secondly, it weakened the responsibility of juries; and, thirdly, it was against the interests of prisoners, because it weakened the position of the Home Secretary in dealing with prisoners who had been convicted. As regarded the first reason, the hon. and learned Member for Reading, if he might say so with respect, missed the point. The hon. and learned Member said that there would be very few appeals in these cases. Very likely, but there was an unlimited right to apply for leave to appeal. Referring to what his right hon. and learned friend had said as to the length of time that might, be taken up by the applications, the hon. and learned Member said that counsel would have it in their power to shorten the proceedings. He appeared to have forgotten then, however, that no counsel would be before that Court. The prisoner would be in gaol, and he would have no right to come before the Court unless the Court themselves gave

  603
  him leave. Of course if he had money enough that prisoner could pay a couple of counsel, but the strong probability was that in the vast majority of cases prisoners would not be able to do this. As he had pointed out, one of two things would happen. Either cases would be gone into in a perfunctory way, in which case the whole thing would resolve itself into a sham, or else there would be a block of work which would make the system impossible. He wished to deal with one other point referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Reading, and also by the learned Attorney-General. The learned Attorney-General pointed out that there would be the greatest difficulty in discriminating between a point of law and a point of fact. He would like with the permission of the House to read a few words from a speech made by the Attorney-General in days when he was nearer the seven years experience of practice in Quarter Sessions of which he had told the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman was dealing with the Bill of 1898. He said—
  "But it cannot be argued that you need to establish a Court of Criminal Appeal in order to ensure the serious and efficient conduct by the Judges of this country of criminal proceedings. If there should be any misconduct on the part of a Judge charged with the administration of criminal law, there is an ample remedy in the functions discharged by the Secretary of State for the Home Office. It cannot be argued that this Bill is necessary in order to prevent errors of law on the part of the tribunal existing."
  The hon. and learned Attorney-General went on to say in that speech that the existing machinery was amply sufficient. Then he continued—
  "I am sure I shall be borne out by my hon. and learned friends familiar with the administration of the law when I say that the difficulties arising owing to the construction of the statutes are so few, and the administration of the criminal courts, in so far as it involves questions of criminal law, so easy that no practical necessity can justify the present proposal. Therefore, the sole ground upon which the proposed legislation rests is, that there should be a Court of Appeal for the purpose of correcting errors of fact."
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: That was before the Beck case.
  MR. RAWLINSON: Yes; it was in 1898. If the hon. and learned Attorney-General found no difficulty in differen-
  604
  tiating between points of law and points of fact in 1898, how could he know say that there was a very great difficulty? But it was not only upon the question of differentiating between questions of law and of fact that the hon. and learned Attorney -General had altered his opinions. Since he moved his Amendment he had had an opportunity of reading the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney-General. He did not propose to detain the House at that late hour by reading it in full, but he was bound to say that no stronger or better speech could have been made in pointing out the dangers of granting an appeal on questions of fact. Perhaps he might be permitted to read this much more from the hon. and learned Attorney-General's speech to the House—
  "If you compare the system of procedure in its civil aspect with the system in its criminal aspect, you will find that in civil procedure the issue is practically defined for the first time, and evidence is laid for the first time when the case is heard. In such a system the equity and fairness of allowing some review with the object of correcting a wrong step is strong and almost irresistible when put forward in the shape of a demand. But in criminal procedure there are various preliminary investigations with the very object of giving finality to the trial. It would, therefore, be a very serious step for this House to interfere with the finality of that procedure. It would be mischievous in any system if there were no means of preventing error; and if no such means existed, and the proposals of this Bill were the only method of correcting mistakes, the argument in its favour would be conclusive: but you have a method of procedure, and all that this Bill proposes is to substitute a different method, a different procedure. You have now the operations of the Home Office. It may be said that the Home Office does not exercise any appellate function, and, theoretically, I do not know that it is necessary for me to contest that proposition. But the Home Office constantly does examine into the case which has been made against a prisoner and the suggestions made in his favour, and does, in effect, exercise an appellate jurisdiction."
  The hon. and learned Attorney-General then spoke as to his experience of the excellent work done by the Home Secretary, and continued—
  "If that man (referring to a particular case) had been brought before the proposed new tribunal, there is no doubt but that his sentence would have been carried out. I am quite aware that the prerogative of mercy would still rest with the Home Secretary, but if a prisoner appeals to the Court of Appeal the hand of the Home Secretary will be temporarily stayed, and if the sentence is con. firmed by the Court of Appeal his hand will

  605
  be finally stayed, because the Home Secretary will feel that, as the conviction rested not merely on the evidence adduced at the trial, but on the investigation by three judges, it would not be proper for him to advise Her Majesty to remit or alter the sentence If you erect this Court of Appeal which can only be enlightened in accordance with the strict rules of evidence you will do so at the cost of a procedure infinitely more elastic, more subtle and efficient in its administration, and infinitely more in the interest of the accused person"
  No words could put better the arguments in favour of the Amendment. He thought that possibly a good many hon. Members did not fully realise the immense importance of the administration of criminal law in England. It was certainly the most important branch of the legal work done in England, and those who had a practical knowledge of the working of the criminal law had the greatest fear of any alteration in the finality of the verdicts of juries. When that fear was coupled with such remarks as those of the Attorney-General which he had just read to the House, hon. Members must hesitate before they changed their minds in the way the Attorney-
  General had done. Coming to another of his reasons, they were, as he had said, weakening the position which the Home Secretary had in these matters at the present time. If they passed the Bill the Home Secretary would be unable to interfere before a man had appealed. If a man had appealed, the Home Secretary would be in a much more difficult position as to interfering than he was at present. For the reasons he had stated he asked the House to hesitate before tampering with legal machinery the outcome of years of successful experience. The one part of the English law of which the British public was proud was the administration of the criminal law, and any attempt to destroy the finality of the verdicts of juries who performed their duties honestly would, he was convinced, be attended by unfortunate results. He begged to move the rejection of the clause.
  Question put.
  The House divided:— Ayes, 200; Noes, 67. (Division List No. 338.)

  AYES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Ffrench, Peter

  Agnew, George William

  Clough, William

  Findlay, Alexander

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Clynes, J. R.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Alden, Percy

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Asquith, Rt Hn Herbert Henry

  Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S Pancras, W.

  Gill, A. H.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cooper, G. J.

  Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)

  Glover, Thomas

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin, A.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Grayson, Albert Victor

  Barker, John

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynremouth)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Crean, Eugene

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Beauchamp, E,

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Gulland, John W.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonprt)

  Crossley, William J.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Cullinan, J.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Haworth, Arthur A

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham

  Black, Arthur W.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Delany, William

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.

  Hodge, John

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Hogan, Michael

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Dickson-Poynder,Sir John P.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Brigg, John

  Duffy, William J.

  Holt, Richard Dinning

  Bright, J. A.

  Duncan,C(Barrow-in-Furness)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Brunner,J.F.L.)Lancs., Leigh)

  Dunne,MajorE Martin(Walsall)

  Hudson, Walter

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Causton,RtHnRichard Knight

  Elibank, Master of

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone,E.)

  Everett, B. Lacey

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jones,SirD.Brynmor (Swansea)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Ferens, T. R.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Connor. John (Kildare, N.)

  Silcock Thomas Ball

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  O'Grady, J.

  Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  O'Shee, James John

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Lambert, George

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Soares, Earnest J.

  Lamont, Norman

  Partington, Oswald,

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Pearson, W. H.M.(Suffolk, Eye

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Pollard, Dr.

  Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury)

  Lough, Thomas

  Price, C.E.(Edinburgh Central)

  Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E

  Lupton, Arnold

  Radford, G. H.

  Toulmin, George

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Verney, F. W.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Rea, Walter Russell(Scarboro'

  Walters, John Tudor

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Rees, J.D.

  Walton, Sir John L.(Leeds, S.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Waring, Walter

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Richards, T.F.(Wolyerh'mpt'n

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  M'Crae, George

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E(Clackmannan

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Roberts, John H.(Denbighs.)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Whitley John Henry (Halifax)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Runciman, Walter

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Massie, J.

  Samuel, Herbert L..(Cleveland)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Scarisbrick, T.T. L.

  Winfrey, R.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Morrell, Philip

  Sherwell, Arthur James.

  Pease.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Nield, Herbert

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Balcarres, Lord

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Faber, Capt. W.V (Hants, W.)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fell, Arthur

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Barrie, H.T.(Londonderry, N.)

  Fethertonhaugh, Godfrey

  Scott, Sir S.(Marylebone, W.)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Fletcher, J.S.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Forster Hendry William

  Starkey, John R.

  Bertram, Julius

  Gretton John

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hardy, Lawrence (Kent, Ashford

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury S.Edm'ds

  Turnour, Viscount

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hills, J. W.

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hunt Rowland

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col.A.R.

  Younger, George

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Cave and Mr. Salter.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  MR. S. T. EVANS moved to insert after the words "with the leave of" in Paragraph (b) the words "the Court by whom the person is convicted or." He would not at that hour detain the House, but what he objected to was the necessity of coming to the Court of Appeal in London. The Amendment was, he
  thought, both reasonable and necessary on various grounds. In the first place it was necessary on the ground of expense. He commended it also to the House on the score of expedition, and everybody was agreed that if they were to have appeals they should be as expeditious as possible. The only objection
  he thought which had been offered to the proposal was made by the Attorney-General in Committee, when he argued that it would be unseemly that immediately after the verdict was passed and sentence imposed, especially if it was a serious sentence such as the capital sentence, the person who was defending the prisoner should at once jump up and ask for leave of the Court to appeal. Personally he (Mr. Evans) thought it desirable that, on the two grounds he had stated and on the ground of relieving the prisoner from anxiety, the Court of first instance should be empowered if they thought fit to grant the necessary leave.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 1, after the words 'the,' to insert the words 'court before whom the person is convicted or of the.' "—(Mr. Evans.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be inserted in the Bill."
  *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid his hon. and learned friend had stated the grounds upon which he (the Attorney-General) had opposed the Amendment in Committee. He thought the House would be satisfied, that there was something in the view he had expressed. It was all-important that the criminal law should be administered with full solemnity. If immediately after verdict and sentence it were open for counsel for the prisoner to rise, and, it might be, with some attempt at dramatic effect, suggest that the verdict of the jury was entitled to no weight, the scene would tend to disparage the administration of justice. He did not think the prisoner's position was in the least degree prejudiced by the plan of the Government. It would be the duty of the Judge to communicate with the Court of Appeal in the form of a report, and there would be little doubt that if that opinion were in favour of an appeal leave would be granted. Applications
  for appeals should always be matters for consideration; it was very desirable that before any such application was made there should be some opportunity for reflection.
  MR. LYTTELTONthought the Attorney-General had given a very strong argument against his own Bill. He had with the greatest justice spoken in favour of the solemnity of criminal trials and had asked the House to reject the Amendment because he imagined there might be a dramatic scene at the end of every criminal trial. That was not a likely occurrence. He had heard a good many dramatic ends to trials but anybody making such an application would do so with due respect. The position the Attorney-General had placed them in was that beneath the consciousness of every single man in the Court there would be the conviction that the sentence which had just been pronounced could be appealed against. He would go further than that. He would go so far as to say that the Judge while he had the knowledge of the gravity of the crime might say: "But you must remember that the jury and I may have been wrong, and this question which has been tried with so much solemnity may go before these Judges in London." He thought it was worth while mentioning that although he did not agree with the machinery of the Bill the Amendment which had been moved by his hon. and learned friend was recommended by the Royal Commission in 1879, by another Select Committee of that House in 1883, and by the Association of Chairmen of Quarter Sessions last year, and was accepted by the Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords last year. The Amendment therefore ought to be treated with some respect.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 67; Noes, 162. (Division List No. 339.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood,RtHn.SirAlex.F.

  Beach,Hn.Michael HughHicks

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bertram, Julius

  Cavendish,Rt.Hon.VictorC.W.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone.E.)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Bridgeman, W, Clive

  Corbett,A.Cameron(Glasgow)

  Barrie,H.T.(Londonderry, N.)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hunt, Rowland

  Smith,Abel H.(Hertford. East)

  Craig,CharlesCurtis(Antrim,S.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm

  Smith,F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Starkey, John R.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lockwood,Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.A.R.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Turnour, Viscount

  Faber, George Denison (York

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Valentia, Viscount

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants,W.)

  Nield, Herbert

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent. Mid)

  Fell, Arthur

  Pease,HerbertPike(Darlington

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Radford, G. H.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B.Stuart-

  Gretton, John

  Rawlinson, John FrederickPeel

  Younger, George

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Hervey.F. W.F. (BuryS. Edm'ds

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Evans and Mr. Watson

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Rutherford.

  Hills, J. W.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Maddison, Frederick

  Agnew, George William

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Ferens, T. R.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Allen,A.Acland(Christchurch)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)

  Asquith,Rt.HnHerbert Henry

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Marnham, F. J.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Massie, J.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Gill, A. H.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Baring,Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

  Gladstone,Rt.Hn. HerbertJohn

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Barker, John

  Glover, Thomas

  Morgan,J.Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Barry,Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Morrell, Philip

  Beauchamp, E.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  O'Connor. John (Kildare. N.)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Gulland, John W.

  O'Grady, J.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Partington. Oswald

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hardy,Laurence (Kent,Ashf'rd

  Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Price,C.E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Brigg, John

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Bright, J. A.

  Hogan, Michael

  Rees. J. D.

  Brunner,J.F.L.(Lancs.,Leigh)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Renton. Major Leslie

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Richards,T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cave, George

  Hudson, Walter

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Robertson,Sir G.Scott (Br'df'd

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Clough, William

  Jones,Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea

  Runciman, Walter

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Samuel,Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Schwann. C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Corbett,CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Seaverns. J. H.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lambert, George

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lamont, Norman

  Sherwell. Arthur James

  Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Crean, Eugene

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Strachey. Sir Edward

  Cullinan, J.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Davies,David (MontgomeryCo.

  Lough, Thomas

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Taylor. John W. (Durham)

  Dewar,Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Duffy, William J.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Tennant,Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Duncan,C(Barrow-in-Furness)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Thompson.,J.W.H. (Somerset,E

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Toulmin, George

  Dunne,MajorE.Martin (Walsall

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.

  Verney, F. W.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  M'Crae, George

  Walters. John Tudor

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  612

  613

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES —

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  MR. RAWLINSON moved: "In page 3, line 1, to leave out the words 'Court of Criminal Appeal,' and to insert the words ' Secretary of State for the Home Department.'" He said the clause would then read: "With the leave of the Secretary of State against his conviction on any ground of appeal which involves a question of fact alone or a question of mixed law and fact or any other ground which appears to the Court to be a sufficient ground of appeal." He ventured to submit that this was the real solution of the difficulty, and the proper basis for a compromise on which those who differed on the question involved in the Bill should meet. The present position was that there was no appeal on questions of fact, save the formal one to the Home Secretary. He had read the Home Secretary's speech in praise of the work that was being done, and he thoroughly endorsed all that was said in it; but in the Amendment he was pressing for all the advantages which they got from the careful scrutiny the Home Secretary exercised, and all the informal advantages to be derived from the fact that the Home Secretary was not confined by the rules of legal evidence, while on the other hand involving all the disadvantages which he had indicated in the Bill, disadvantages which had led many practising lawyers to believe that the Bill would be unworkable, if unrestricted power to ask for leave of appeal were granted. He submitted that as a sifting tribunal the Home Secretary was far preferable to the Court of Criminal Appeal. The Home Secretary had a staff at his command and was best able to say whether there was a prima facie case for the appeal. If the Home Secretary thought there was a prima facie case he could refer it to the Court of Criminal Appeal and get rid of the responsibility. As the Bill stood the Court of Criminal Appeal was not a suitable tribunal to inquire into the fact whether there was a prima facie case for appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeal was composed of men accustomed to receiving the assistance of counsel and to hearing
  614
  people put the facts before them for one side or the other. That was not a suitable tribunal to which a prisoner should send up shorthand notes and leave them to indicate the real points. Such work would be better done by the Home Secretary's department, and in a case where there was the slightest doubt the Home Secretary would undoubtedly have the power to refer the case to the Court of Criminal Appeal. He ventured to press most strongly that the Amendment should be accepted in order that they would be able to obtain what the Bill was intended to obtain. They were taking under the Bill what everybody in the House must admit was an experimental step—it had been referred to by the Attorney-General in a previous Bill as an experiment in criminal law—and if they gave unrestricted right of appeal they were making a step which was irrevocable. Could there be any harm in taking the first step cautiously? Could there be any harm in giving the right of appeal subject to the sanction of the Home Secretary? If the Amendment worked badly in any way, then it would be time enough for the House to deal with the matter, and extend it if they thought necessary. He came across the charge to the grand jury of an eminent judge of the King's Bench Division the other day. That Judge was in favour of the Bill taken as a whole. He said they agreed that they should give the power of appeal on questions of law and power to enable the Home Secretary to refer cases to the Court of Criminal Appeal. But he (the Judge) could not help thinking that it would be unwise for the present, until there had been a little more experience of the Court of Criminal Appeal, that a universal right of appeal should be given on questions of fact. He (Mr. Rawlinson) ventured to submit that no possible harm could be done to the Bill itself or to. the objects which he felt sure the learned Attorney-General meant to carry out by the measure, by adopting this Amendment. He was certain that the Home Secretary could be trusted

  615
  thoroughly to refer any prima facie case to the Court, and the acceptance of the Amendment would save the Court from becoming blocked by an overwhelming rush of applications. The Home Secretary would exercise his discretion in a wise way, and feeling that to be the case he begged to move his Amendment.
  MR. CAVE: said that they had in the Home Office machinery already set up and a staff already experienced in dealing with matters of this kind. He did not know whether hon. Members realised it, but he thought they would find on examination that the number of petitions to the Home Office against sentences and convictions in the country already exceeded 2,000. The Home Office dealt very clearly and efficiently with those applications under rules laid down by the officials after long experience. The rules were set out in a well-known memorandum, and he thought that everybody who was acquainted with the procedure knew that it was satisfactory in its results. The Home Office did not content itself with merely considering the evidence at the trial; but, of course, the Court of Criminal Appeal would be confined to the evidence at the trial, unless some new facts were brought forward. The Home Office did not take that course. It made inquiries, and where new facts were even suggested it made its own investigation into the facts. In that way the department very often ascertained new facts that were not brought out at the trial. That was an elastic and an informal procedure, but
  it operated in many cases to the advantage of the person accused. Where new facts of that kind were found out by the Home Office—often by the police—they were brought to the notice of the judge or the chairman who tried the case. The judge or chairman, as the case might be, was asked to say whether if he had known those facts he would have been satisfied with the ve dict or would have imposed the sentence which he had done on the prisoner. Very often the Home Office was able, after procedure of this kind, to remit the whole or a portion of the sentence imposed upon a prisoner, or to take some other steps such as the circumstances of the ease appeared to warrant. All that was embodied in the Amendment was that the same kind of procedure should be followed under the Bill. It was proposed that the Home Office should first be appealed to. It should still have the power of dealing with an appeal summarily, but if it thought that there was a doubt about the verdict or the sentence it could give leave to go to the more formal tribunal—the Court of Criminal Appeal— where the matter could be thrashed out. The Amendment admitted the principle of the Bill, but suggested a machine simpler, less expensive, and more to the advantage of the accused than the machine suggested by the Bill. For those reasons he supported the Amendment.
  The House divided:—Ayes. 200; Noes, 67. (Division List, No 340.)

  AYES.

  Aignew, George William

  Bramsdon. T. A.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Brunner, F.J.L. (Lancs.,Leigh)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Allen,A.Acland (Christchurch)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Causton,Rt.Hn. Richard Knight

  Duncan. C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Dunne,Major E.Martin (Wals'll

  Barker, John

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Barry,Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Elibank. Master of

  Beauchamp, E.

  Clough, William

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Beaumont, Hon. Herbert

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Bennett, E. N.

  Collins,Sir.Wm.J.(S.Pancras,W

  Fenwick, Charles

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Corbett,C.H. (Sussex,E.Gr'st'd

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Fuller. John Michael F.

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Gill, A. H.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Crean, Eugene

  Glover, Thomas

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lough, Thomas

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Grayson, Albert Victor

  Lupton, Arnold

  Rose, Charles Day

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Gulland, John W.

  Lyell, Chalres Henry

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leciester)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Harmsworth, Cecil G. (Worc'r)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Marks,G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Smith,F.E. (Liverpool, Walto

  Higham, John Sharp

  Marnham, F. J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H,

  Massie, J.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Hogan, Michael

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Morrell, Philip

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Norton, Capt. Cecil Milliam

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Thompson, J.W.H(Somerset,E

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Grady, J.

  Toulmin, George

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Partington, Oswald

  Verney, F. W.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Walton, Sir John L. (Laeds, S.)

  Jones. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  White, George (Norfolk) O

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pollard, Dr.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Kincaid-Smith, captain

  Price.C.E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Radford, G. H.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Lambert, George

  Rainy. A. Rolland

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Lamont, Norman

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Rees, J. D.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal. W.)

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mp'n

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Pease.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood RtHn. Sir Alex.F.

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.

  Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Remnant, James Farquharson)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Fell, Arthur

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Barrie, H.T.)Londonderry, N.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Beach, Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hardy, Laurence)Kent, Ashf'rd

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Starkey, John R.

  Bertram, Julius

  Hervey, F.W.F(BuryS. Edm'ds

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff's)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hills, J. W

  Valentia, Viscount

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hunt, Rowland

  Warde, Col. C.E. (Kent, Mid)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col.A.R

  Younger, George

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W

  Lyttleton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Rawlinson and Mr. Cave

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Court-hope, G. Loyd

  Nield, Herbert

  Question proposed, "That the words Court of Criminal Appeal,' stand part of the Bill."
  VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid that this was really a very proper Amendment, under which the Home Secretary would be called upon to exercise powers of a far less responsible character than those
  618
  he now exercised. He did not know that at this stage in the history of the present Parliament much good was done by taking the views of any member of His Majesty's Government, and comparing them with the views he expressed before taking office. He might point out, however, that the learned Attorney-General himself said in a previous debate

  619
  on this subject that he doubted whether there was a case made out for the substitution of a tribunal consisting of three Judges for the machinery which was at present at the disposal of the Home Secretary, and which had worked with entire satisfaction. He sympathised with the Home Secretary regarding the method which had been adopted by the Press of both Parties in attacking that machinery. He thought the Home Secretary had a very justifiable ground of complaint on that score, but the point he wished to emphasise was that by refusing to accept the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman was really yielding to that popular clamour. While he believed that the attacks which had been made on the Home Office had had some unfortunate effects, he did not think that they had really shaken confidence in the position of the Home Secretary and in the machinery which the right hon. Gentleman had at his disposal for dealing with these matters. It would be a great pity if the action of the Government should be interpreted as a confession of cowardice to be attributed to the very often unscrupulous methods used by the Press on both sides in attacking the Home Office. He would be glad to hear for once in a while whether the views expressed by the Attorney-General before he came into office were not thought to be better than the views to which he had given utterance since he came into office. Nothing had occurred since 1898 to materially alter the views which were then so admirably expressed by the Attorney-General. It was because he believed that this Amendment would not put too great a burden upon the Home Secretary, but would act as a necessary drag on the wheel, and would prevent too many applications for leave to appeal coming before the Court that he supported the Amendment of his hon. and learned friend.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: said that he did not agree with the noble Lord in thinking that this was a very small matter. It was a very serious matter, and he, for one, objected strongly to erecting the Home Office into a Court of law. The Home Office, as all knew who
  620
  had served in Parliament, was at the present time overburdened with work. Not only had the Department as much work as it could do, but it had even more than it could do efficiently, and was labouring under the stress of too much work. Therefore, he thought the House of Commons should halt before it imposed any further serious obligations upon the Home Office. The present pressure upon the Department was one reason why he objected to turning it into a Court of law to decide most important matters. His next reason for objecting to the Amendment was of a very different character. The prisoner was to be considered, and no matter how humane the Home Office or the Home Secretary might be, still the Department was always considered by the prisoner as his gaoler. Could there be anything more absurd than to suppose that the prisoner could appeal with confidence to his gaoler to decide in his favour on the question of as to whether he should have an appeal or not? He had had some little experience of the feelings of a prisoner, and he submitted that it would not be a wise proceeding to throw this burden on the Home Office and to let it appear to the prisoner himself that he was dependent upon his gaoler for justice in a matter of that kind. For those two reasons he must oppose the Amendment and support the Bill as it stood.
  SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the Amendment was really an alternative proposal to the Bill. It was an alternative proposal because it suggested a different method altogether of dealing with the matter. He desired to remind the House that the Home Secretary retained under this Bill all the powers which at the present time he possessed. He had the right at any time to obtain the assistance of the Court of Appeal with a view to eliciting an answer which might be of some guidance to him in the discharge of his important functions. The Amendment proposed that there should be no appeal except at the instance of the Secretary of State, and destroyed altogether any direct right of appeal which was proposed under the Bill. He had had the experience, which many

  621
  of them no doubt had had, of listening to speeches he delivered some years ago in that House in reference to proposals bearing some resemblance to these. He congratulated the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord R. Cecil) on the rewards which had attended his industry. He had exhumed out of the dreary catacombs of Hansard ancient and unsavoury deliverances which he (the Attorney-General) made nine years ago.
  LORD R. CECIL: It was an excellent speech.
  SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he stated that the Home Secretary discharged the functions of a Court of Appeal, and they had had numbers of Home Secretaries who were lawyers of the greatest distinction, and who did apply their highly-trained instincts to these questions where they raised problems of fact and law. There was a feeling that that method of appeal was satisfactory and adequate. Considerable light, however, was thrown upon the machinery of the Home Office by the Beck case. The Commission in that case reported that the machinery of the Home Office was quite inadequate to examine and decide upon the immense number of questions which were presented for every-day consideration. The alternatives were the reorganisation of the whole machinery of the Home Office to constitute it a Court of Appeal as well as a Government Department, or to constitute such a tribunal as that which that Bill proposed to set up. The conclusive objection to building upon the foundation of the Home Office was that the proceedings took place in secrecy. There was no representation of the accused. There was no argument, no evidence, no publicity. It was impossible, after the experience of the last two or three years in relation to cases which he did not need to mention, to say that any proposal to build upon the machinery of the Home Office would have given anything like the public satisfaction which he was convinced was necessary. He invited his hon. and learned friend to recognise that such a scheme would have no chance, even if it were perfected so as to meet the
  622
  views of the Committee which sat on the Beck case, of being accepted. As matters stood it was still more unsatisfactory. A tribunal which sat publicly, heard all that was to be heard, sat in the light of day and gave a judgment found on reasons and argument would satisfy everybody that all had been done that could be done to get to the bottom of the case and would be infinitely more satisfactory than the Home Office could be.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONcontended that there was no direct right of appeal given under the Bill. The prisoner must obtain leave to appeal. The Amendment merely substituted the Home Office for the Court of Appeal. In spite of all the Attorney-General had said they had the evidence of a great number of years during which the Home Office had worked in this question of appeal to the satisfactorion of all parties. The Home Office, as those who had any experience of its dealings with criminal matters knew, was prompt. Its methods of inquiry were convenient because they were not bound by strict rule and precedent, and, what was rather important, there were no costs to stimulate the small practitioner. They had heard that night, and more on the Second Reading, one great argument for appeal being assigned to the Court and taken away from the Home Office and that was the relief to the Home Secretary's feelings, which were very much pained and lacerated by the comments of the Press in recent cases.
  THE HOME SECRETARY (Mr. GLADSTONE, LEEDS, W.): My feelings were not lacerated.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that unless he misunderstood the Home Secretary's remarks on the subject of the use of the Royal prerogative, the Home Secretary felt very much the action of the Press.
  MR. GLADSTONE: What I said was that if a man took the office of Home Secretary he must take what he gets. I did use the word "intolerable," and I adhere to it, because my opinion

  623
  was, and is, that the fact that the Home Office cannot reply makes the position intolerable from the point of view of administration. That has nothing to do with my own personal feelings. I think I can stand the racket.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he did not suggest the right hon. Member was less able to stand the attacks of the Press or the criticisms of the public than other people. Other Departments of the Government had had some experience of these attacks. The present and the late President of the Board of Education had suffered attack from the Press.
  MR. GLADSTONE: They can answer.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the Amendment put the Home Office in the position of preparing a case for the Court of Criminal Appeal. It would be a great advantage to that Court if the matters coming before it were put into shape, if the Home Office decided whether the matter was worthy of the attention of the Court of Appeal. The Home Office was as capable as the Court would be to determine whether or no a prima facie case had been made out for appeal. Acceptance of the Amendment would mean not only that there would be a limit, and a reasonable limit, put upon the number of these appeals, but that there would be a very great economy of the time of the Court. The learned Member for Reading said the matter would be settled by a few words of counsel addressed to the Court. He could hardly have read the procedure contemplated by the Bill or pictured what would happen. The prisoner would not be there, counsel would not be there. What would happen would be that the depositions, the Judge's notes and the like would be laid before the Court. These the Court would have to wade through and determine the question one way or the other. The Amendment proposed that instead the Home Office should decide whether or not a prima facie case existed.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid he would like to point out that the Amend-
  624
  ment really imposed new duties and new functions upon the Home Office. At present the Home Office action was based on the prerogative of mercy. Now it was proposed that the Home Office should prepare cases for the Court of Appeal. Indeed if the Amendment were adopted the Home Office would be changed into a Court of Appeal of first instance. The duties of the Home Secretary and the Home Office would be seriously and dangerously widened. At present, the Home Secretary in certain cases examined into the question whether or not a man had been rightly convicted and decided to the best of his ability. The Amendment made the Home Office responsible in all criminal cases of appeal for ascertaining whether a prima facie case had been made out. For his own part he protested against these new constitutional duties being imposed upon the Home Office. There was another question. Supposing the Amendment were accepted and the Home Secretary had practically to advise the Court of Appeal as to whether a prima facie case had been made out for appeal, and supposing he refused an application and was asked in that House to state why he had refused. Was he to state his case? It seemed to him it would be extremely difficult to refuse. It was not like the present case where he necessarily refused to give information because he could not disclose the information at his disposal. When it was a matter of deciding whether or no there was a prima facie case for appeal he did not see how he could refuse his reasons. If he were to state his reasons there were evident disadvantages. He hoped the House would not accept the Amendment.
  MR. LYTTELTONsaid he did not share the view that the Home Secretary had presented on the matter. The Amendment of his hon. and learned friend was almost the most important Amendment to the Bill and was well worthy of the attention of the House, if only for the reason that the Judges had unanimously recommended the proposal some years ago. His view of the Amendment was that it would provide that the Home Secretary, when cases

  625
  of importance were brought before him, should have an opportunity for taking action. There were cases where it was desirable, not merely in the interests of justice, but also to allay dissatisfaction, that he should have the opportunity of bringing the case to the Court of Criminal Appeal. He thought the Amendment of his hon. and learned friend gave the Home Secretary that opportunity. He was afraid he disagreed with the hon. Member for Cambridge University. He did not think it meant that there should devolve on the Home Secretary the duty of finding out whether there was a prima facie case for appeal, but, in ninety-nine cases out of 100, the Home Secretary and his staff were competent to deal with the question. There might be exceptional cases where the Home Secretary and his staff thought they were of such gravity and perplexity, and where the public took so much interest, that they would wish the proceedings to be public. The Amendment gave them the necessary power to ensure that. That was his reading of the Amendment. He confessed he would like to hear a reconsidered opinion from that which the Attorney-General gave. He would not read it as it was given nine years ago, but it was immensely forcible. The Attorney-General then said that he had actually known a case of murder tried at Leeds where a verdict of guilty was given, and was strongly supported by the Judge, and he imagined it would be strongly supported by any Court of Appeal. The Home Secretary sent a Commissioner to Leeds who discovered by methods outside the law that the case was a genuine one, and a free pardon was given. He would like to know how the Attorney-General now regarded the argument which he then brought forward in favour of the Home Office as against a Court of Appeal.
  SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he made special provision for the Court of Appeal to deal with special cases by sending down Commissioners to take the evidence and to report on the evidence to the Court.
  MR. LYTTELTONsaid he was extremely surprised to hear what the
  626
  Attorney-General had said. He took his word for it that provision had been made in the Bill for evidence to be taken in the way which the Home Office now took it, but what the Attorney-General now said negatived that altogether.
  SIR JOHN WALTONsaid they took the depositions.
  MR. LYTTELTONsaid the Attorney-General knew that he was arguing for the possibility of an informal inquiry, and he led the House to believe some moments previously that such powers were contained in that Bill. That was entirely wrong. No such powers were contained in the Bill. He challenged the Attorney-General to contradict him. Would the Commissioner who was to make an inquiry under that Bill be entitled to go outside the ordinary rules of evidence? He thought not. He thought the Attorney-General would agree that the Commissioner was not and therefore his interruption was entirely unfounded. His argument was that justice was more likely to be attained by an informal inquiry by the Home Office going outside the legal rules of evidence. If he was right then he was afraid that in the case the Attorney-General argued nine years ago the man would have been hanged.
  MR. EVANSthought the right hon. Gentleman had entirely mistaken the scope of the Amendment. It did not raise the question whether or not the functions of the Home Office should be extended, but merely the question of giving a man's right to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Amendment simply said that if they wanted leave to appeal they must not go to the Court of Appeal. Under the Bill no power which the Home Secretary now had was taken away from him. All the functions the Home Secretary now had would still remain to him. If the Bill altered those functions at all, it was to extend the powers he now had. It was not a question whether Judges had recommended this or that, that they had to consider. They were not dealing with the matter as lawyers. He had often said, and he said again, that when they were dealing

  627
  with questions of legal reform Judges were not the persons as to whose views they ought to inquire. Instances in support of that view could be quoted without number. Fifty or sixty years ago all the Judges in a body declined to allow reform of the law, in order to allow prisoners' counsel, in cases of felony, to address the jury, and one of the Judges went so far as to say that if that law was passed he would resign. The law was passed, but he did not resign. It was entirely wrong in dealing with legal matters to ask what the Judges thought should be done.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDregretted that on the present occasion in regard to the Amendment he found himself out of sympathy with his hon. friends on his own side of the House. It seemed to him that if, as they suggested, a prisoner wishing to appeal must apply to the Home Secretary for leave to appeal, they might have gone so far as to suggest that if he did that he deprived himself of the prerogative of mercy, and all those rights and duties which were inherent in the Home Office of inquiring into the whole case. If he understood it, it did nothing of the sort. All the Home Secretary's rights were to be left alone exactly as at present. The Home Office was going to hold the same inquiries, take the same informal evidence, not bound by the rules, and to do the same amount of justice in the future as in the past; but there were cases such as the Beck case where the Home Office would have refused leave to appeal, the Home Office actually had refused leave to appeal, and it was that case and one or two others of the same kind which had awakened the public conscience on that question which had caused the Bill to be brought forward, and which had caused the Attorney-General to change his mind with such effect. As an illustration of what would happen in such eases would suffice to show that the Amendment ought not to be adopted. If it was adopted and a prisoner applied to the Home Office for leave to appeal, the Home Office would make an inquiry taking three or four months. If the man were innocent there was no sense in keeping him waiting for two or three
  628
  months to know whether he had a right to appeal. The practice the Bill proposed to set up was that the prisoner by means of notes or through his counsel should ask the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal. The permission should be granted or refused in the course of a very few minutes. If counsel got up and attempted to put a case and had no proper evidence that there was any such right to appeal he would be stopped. He ventured to say, that, as in cases at present, where leave to appeal was refused, it would be impossible for counsel of respectability to prolong his application before the Court if he had got no case. It was only in cases where there was a real right to appeal that counsel would insist on his right that any length of time should be consumed. It was only in those cases, where it was the right and proper thing that such applications would be made. If a prisoner was to have the right to appeal he should have the right to go to the Court and ask for it without losing his liberty. That permission to appeal should rest with the Home Secretary was absurd. He felt that he was obliged to vote against the Amendment.
  MR. RAWLINSON,in reply to the various points that had been raised, said objection had been taken to reference being made to the Report of the Commission on the Beck case, which went into the facts of the Beck case, and to reference being made to the Reports of the Judges in 1892 and 1895 on the grounds that the Judges took a conservative view. Who were they to go to? Were they to go to the people who had administered the law on a question of machinery like this? He ventured to intervene because the Home Secretary seemed to misunderstand the purport of the Amendment, the purport of which was easily explained. They did not propose to alter the functions of the Home Secretary in any way. At the present time anyone who was dissatisfied with his conviction sent his application to the Home Secretary, and if the Amendment were passed the Bill would permit him to do exactly the same as he did now. In any case where there arose a point of law or of

  629
  fact, or mixed points of law and fact, then the Home Secretary would give leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Many people shared the feeling that a Court composed of three Judges was not a good tribunal to deal with cases in which application was made for leave to appeal—cases in which documents and copies of evidence were sent before the Court. The Home Office, it was believed, would do the work much better than the
  tribunal proposed, and wherever necessary there would not be the slightest difficulty in referring cases to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 151; Noes, 52. (Division List No. 341.)

  AYES

  Acland-Hood, RtHn.SirAlex.F

  Acland-Hood, RtHn.SirAlex.F

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Bertram, Julus

  Hervey, F W F (Bury S Edm'ds)

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hudson, Walter

  Starkey, John R.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Cave, George

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Younger, George

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Nield, Herbert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Mr. Laurence Hardy and Mr. Hills.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Remnant, John Frederick Peel

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Renton, Major Lesile

  NOES.

  Agnew, George William

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Crean, Eugene

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Astbury, John Meir

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Duncan, C. Barrow-in-Furness)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Barker, John

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lamont, Norman

  Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

  Dunn, Major E Martin (Walsall

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Beauchamp, E.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lough, Thomas

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Grayson, Albert Victor

  MacVeagh, John Gordon Swift

  Causton, Rt. Hn Richard Knight

  Gulland, John W.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  M'Crae, George

  Chance, Frederick William

  Harmswroth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Clough, William

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S Pancras, W

  Higham, John Sharp

  Marks. G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Corbett, CH(Sussex, EGrinst'd

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Massie, J.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Howard, Hon Geoffrey

  Morrell, Philip

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Toulmin, George

  O'Grady, J.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Walters, John Tudor

  Partington, Oswald

  Rose, Charles Day

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Warner. Thomas Courtenay T.

  Pearson,W. H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Seaverns, J. H.

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Radford, G. H.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Pease.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Thompson, J.W.H (Somerset,E.

  MR. BOTTOMLEYmoved, "In page 3, line 8, at end, to add the words, 'Provided that any person convicted on indictment upon a charge involving sentence of death shall be entitled to appeal under this Act to the Court of Criminal Appeal against his conviction, on any ground of appeal which involved a question of law alone, or a question of fact alone, or a question of mixed law and fact.'" He believed that to submit any Amendment to the House under the circumstances then obtaining was a work of some futility, as one had to contend against, not only the unsuitability of the hour, but the despotism of the Treasury Bench, which seemed to regard every clause of the Bill as sacred. Adopting the common form used in regard to most of the Amendments, he ventured to submit that this was at least one of the most important Amendments that the House was called upon to consider. The Bill as it stood gave an absolute right of appeal upon any question of law, and it gave a right of appeal on questions of fact, or mixed questions of law and fact, by leave of the Court of Criminal Appeal. His Amendment proposed that in the case of any person convicted upon a charge involving a sentence of death that person should be entitled as a right without the necessity of fulfilling any technical forms or applications to an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. His submission to the House was that given a Court of Criminal Appeal it was almost unarguable that they should shut out from that Court by any technical barrier a person sentenced to death. The noble and learned Lord the Member for Marylebone said earlier in the debate that he maintained an unlimited admiration of trial by jury. Whatever the
  632
  noble Lord might think about trial by jury, he (Mr. Bottomley) certainly did not maintain an unlimited admiration for the present judicial bench. He had. heard a Judge who was at present on the bench when dealing with a trial for murder dwell during the greater part of his summing up upon the moral delinquencies of the prisoner and a lady who was not his wife. Everyone had heard or seen cases in recent times where Judges did not give satisfaction to the general public by their method of administering the criminal law. A man under sentence of death would have no point of law to appeal upon, because it was very rarely indeed that a point of law arose in a criminal case. Every schoolboy knew the distinction between law and fact in a criminal case. A person under sentence of death scarcely ever had a right of appeal on a point of law, although on almost every ground that could be named that right should undoubtedly be his Even if he could have claimed an unlimited admiration for the judicial bench, which, as he had said, he could not, he would still have been unable to claim unlimited admiration for the wisdom of modern counsel. He had seen many a man's case lost in Court by the inability, sometimes the inexperience, sometimes the overworking, of the learned counsel to whom it had been committed. He had seen counsel who had done their best, but had very often put the case in a light which could only have one result, namely, to obtain the conviction of the prisoner. Considering all these things, he put it to the House very earnestly that in a Court of Criminal Appeal they ought to give a person who was under the death penalty the right of appeal without any restriction. When he put
  633
  the point in Committee the Attorney-General dismissed it on the ground that there was no logic behind it. That would apply to many provisions in the Bill. On the question of logic they might even object to providing, on questions of law, that the members of the Court should give their judgments separately, which would interest lawyers only, while, on questions of fact, the one judgment alone was given. He desired to put this further consideration. In the matter of the death penalty many of them entertained a very strong view indeed as to the serious and solemn character of the jurisdiction of the State. So long as we had capital punishment as part of our penal code we had no right to deprive any person under sentence of death of every opportunity known to the law to establish his innocence. He summarised his argument thus, that the attitude of the Judge sometimes, the attitude of counsel frequently, the atmosphere of the case constantly led to convictions where a man was innocent. The solemnity of the matter was quite sufficient to recommend it to the conscience of the country. He had had many opportunities of discussing the matter, and in no case had there been any serious exception taken to the proposal.
  LORD R. CECILseconded. The Amendment in his view was very desirable.
  SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the Government were prepared to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 8, at end, to add: 'Provided that any person convicted on indictment upon a charge involving sentence of death shall he entitled to appeal under this Act to the Court of Criminal Appeal against his conviction on any ground of appeal which involves a question of law alone or a question of fact alone or a question of mixed faw and fact.'"
  Agreed to.
  MR. F. E. SMITH: moved in page 3, line 11, to leave out from the words "jury" to ''or,'' in line 13, and to insert the words "is under all the circumstances
  634
  unsafe or unsatisfactory." The Amendment, he said, was one which had some relation to the Amendment moved by the Member for Cambridge University which the House had rejected. That was an Amendment which would have excluded from the operation of the Bill the right of appealing on issues of fact. In his opinion the House rightly rejected that, but he wished it to be made quite clear how far the right of appeal which was proposed by the Bill was of any value. The question was extremely difficult for laymen to understand. As it stood at present the clause which dealt with the matter allowed an appeal on any ground on which the verdict of the jury might be set aside in a civil case. But the permissible range of appeal in civil cases was very narrowly circumscribed. There was the case, well known in the profession, of the Metropolitan Railway Company against Wright. Let him remind the House of the issue in that case. The issue in a nutshell was whether, when the Court of Appeal was of opinion that the verdict of the jury in the Court below was wrong, that it was such a verdict as they would not have arrived at, they had a right to interfere. On the one side it was contended that it was the duty of the appellate tribunal in such a case to interfere, on the other that, before the Court of Appeal interfered, they must be satisfied that the verdict was such as no twelve reasonable men would ever have come to. These were the two contentions each of which were strenuously insisted upon in the House of Lords. The second carried the day. He would read the House what was said by some of their Lordships on the matter. Lord Selborne said there must be such overwhelming preponderance of evidence as to make the verdict so unreasonable as to be perverse, such a verdict as no jury, instructed and assisted properly by the Judge, could return. Lord Herschell said a verdict ought not to be disturbed unless it was one which no jury reviewing the whole of the evidence reasonably could with propriety find Lord Halsbury went further. He said that if a reasonable man might find the verdict which had been found, no Court had jurisdiction to disturb the decision

  635
  on fact which law had confided to juries. He asked the House to consider what was involved in that. At once it became clear that if the practice in civil matters were imported into criminal matters by the clause under the Bill, they had very small security indeed that those injustices in criminal matters which had so much exercised the minds of the people in the last twelve months would be dealt with at all under the new Bill. Let him take as an instance the Edalji case. He was not going to argue that case for a moment, but he would remind the House what the Committee in it said, that owing to the circumstances they thought the conviction was "unsafe and unsatisfactory." They said it was a conviction which ought not to stand and it had been altered with the consent of all parties. The point was that under the Bill the decision in the Edalji case would not have been altered. Unsafe, no doubt, conceded to be unsatisfactory, but no one would say it was a verdict which a reasonable man could not have found. The Home Secretary could not say so, because he reminded the House only the other night of the character and description of the jury and of its competence. A reasonable jury could have found the verdict in that case and did find it. It was merely because on review it appeared to be unsafe and unsatisfactory that it was dealt with. If this Amendment was not passed it was just those cases which required it most that would not receive the benefit of the Bill. All his Amendment did was, to adopt the words of the Committee in the Edalji case, to adopt their finding that the verdict of the jury was unsafe and unsatisfactory, and to apply that principle to the Bill, instead of saying that an appeal should be allowed only in such cases as would enable a civil appellate Court to reverse the decision. Wherever the verdict of the jury appeared to be unsafe or unsatisfactory it was perfectly intelligible, and the appellate tribunal should be enabled to deal with such cases on appeal. If the Amendment was accepted the House would have what it believed it was getting and what the country desired that the House should have, a really effective appeal on matters of fact where
  636
  there had been a miscarriage of justice in the Court below.
  MR. CLAVELL SALTER:said in seconding that, that was the first Amendment which did not seek in some way to destroy the value of the Bill, so far as it rested on questions of fact. He was strongly in favour of an effective appeal on the question of fact. With regard to the reason of the Amendment he thought the whole clause must be looked at, because it might be said in connection with the second part of the clause that it to some extent at all events, if not almost entirely, would provide what his learned friend wished to bring about. He did not think that was really so, on any grounds on which the verdict of the jury could be set aside. He was not quite sure that he understood the draughtsmanship of the clause, or that he knew what the draughtsman meant when he talked about a wrong decision of fact. There could not be a wrong decision of fact, unless it was made by the jury. Those Members of the House not thoroughly acquainted with the technicalities of the question ought to understand that the present position was that they could only appeal on the question of fact as in civil cases. They might have a question of fact decided by a jury or by a judge. If it were decided by a judge they might appeal from his decision, and if the Court of Appeal was dissatisfied with that decision, it had full power to reverse it, and frequently it did. But on the question of fact tried by a jury the House of Lords had in recent years laid down a purely artificial rule that unless the verdict of the jury was such that even a perverse man could not have arrived at it, they would not consider it. If there was any evidence that a reasonable man could possibly find that verdict that settled the matter. The effect of that was that if they had a jury in a civil case they were practically unable to appeal at all from an unsatisfactory decision, unless they were able to move for a new trial. That was not a case for a new trial. He did not think that would come in at all. The verdict of the jury could only be set aside altogether if it was a perfectly perverse finding, or in the case of new

  637
  trials where there had been misdirection or something of that kind. Those who wanted appeals on questions of fact wanted those appeals apart altogether from misdirection, and his view was that the words of the clause as drawn would prevent that Bill being successful in any of the cases where there had been a desire for the Bill. The words read, "The Court of Appeal shall allow the appeal if they think that the verdict of the jury can be set aside on any ground on which the verdict of a jury may be set aside in an appeal in civil proceedings, or on the ground of a wrong decision of any question of law or fact, or of mixed law and fact." That was the only case which would be dealt with. He was afraid that if the first part of the section remained as it was the Court would interpret a wrong decision of fact as a decision which they could upset on appeal, and in order to upset it on appeal it would have to be a decision such as they could upset in a civil case. If the Attorney-General and the Government were anxious that there should be a really effective Court of Appeal which would not be bound by hard legal lines, and if they wished that the appeal on the question of fact should be an effective appeal such as would allay the feelings of anxiety in the country which had given rise to the Bill, he hoped the Attorney-General would insert some such words as those that had been suggested. The words could not possibly do any harm, all that they said was that the verdict of a jury might be set aside which was unsafe or unsatisfactory. If that was not a case where the appeal should be allowed he did not know what was.
  SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he felt some sympathy for the feelings of anxiety displayed by his hon. and learned friends that the Court of Appeal should not feel itself fettered by rigid rules, and that in considering whether a conviction should be sustained or quashed it should have a wide discretion; but on the other hand it was important to remember that under our constitution the tribunal for deciding the question of fact was the jury. There had been a rule for adjusting the relations between the Court of Appeal and the jury in civil procedure which had the immense
  638
  advantage of being formed on scientific precision. They understood what that rule was, but the Amendment erred in the direction of being loose to the point of obscurity and of being unscientific, inasmuch as they would have no precision. He would be very glad to accept words which would have the advantage of some scientific precision and which would avoid the dangers attached to the words suggested. He asked the House to consider the rule which applied to civil cases and which he thought should apply to cases of the kind under discussion. The Court of Appeal had to recognise that it was dealing with a tribunal specially competent to deal with the question of fact, and if the issue had been clearly and fairly put before the jury, if they had understood it, if they had applied their minds to it, and if they were not influenced by misdirection or bias, then the Court of Appeal might say, "We should have come to a different conclusion," but neither judges nor the Court of Appeal were judges of fact. The jury were the judges of fact, and if they were to disturb the findings of the jury then they must find some better rule than that which the House of Lords had laid down. If the Court of Appeal thought that reasonable men properly instructed could not have arrived at the conclusion at which the jury had arrived then they might set it aside, but only then. If the Court of Appeal thought that the jury might reasonably have come to that conclusion on the evidence then the verdict could not be disturbed, but if they thought that they could not reasonably have come to that conclusion having regard to the evidence and the danger of misdirection and misapprehension, then there were grounds for setting the judgment aside. His hon. and learned friend suggested the insertion of the words "unsafe and unsatisfactory." He wondered where he had got them from. He did not think his hon. and learned friend would get them from a lawyer, and he rather gathered that he got them from the report of the Edalji Commission. He did not know what meaning they should attach to the words. He believed that if they were inserted it would afterwards be held that unsafe must be used in connection with some canon of safety,

  639
  that in point of fact there must be a danger to public safety under the conditions in which the law was being administered. The word unsatisfactory was equally open to doubt, because it might be said, he thought it would be said, that an unsatisfactory verdict meant a verdict to which the existing standard of the House of Lords was applied and which showed that the verdict did not conform to that standard, therefore it must be unsatisfactory, and it might be held that it was unsatisfactory having regard to the circumstances. He was very anxious that the matter should not be left obscure, and if his hon. and learned friend was prepared to accept the clause as it then stood he would agree that in another place the matter should be dealt with fully, and if words which were more satisfactory could be framed they should be. In answer to his hon. and learned friend behind him he wished to point out that there were questions of fact which the Court had to determine before the evidence became admissible. They might also get judgment of facts. He remembered a case in which the late Lord Chief Justice addressed three questions to the jury and they found the prisoner guilty.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid if he rightly understood the Attorney-General he gathered that he did not dissent from his view, but that he objected to the wide meaning of the words he had suggested and of the manner in which they might be interpreted. He would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid that he objected to the withdrawal of the Amendment because he wished to raise the question as to whether that was not a time when it would be desirable to adjourn the debate. He did not think anyone could say that the discussion that night had been in any sense of a Party or obstructive character. If the division lists were looked into he believed it would be found in every case that there had been a real division of opinion on all sides of the House, and not merely a Party division. It was not desirable in the small hours of the morning to go into the details of an important Bill like that,
  640
  especially when they realised, as they must do after the instance they had just had, that there were many points which had still to be adjusted. He thought on every ground that it was undesirable for a Bill of the character and importance of this one to be discussed in the way it must be if the Government were determined to complete the Report stage at that sitting. He therefore moved the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid that he did not think the hon. Member knew exactly the circumstances of the case. The House, perhaps, would take it from him that the Government intended to put the Bill down on Friday last. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University saw him, however, and represented that it was a Bill in which the lawyers who were Members of the House took a very great interest. He said that it was not possible for them to attend in any large number on Friday last, and he, himself, having a large number of Amendments down on the Paper, could not be there to undertake the duty of moving them. He told the hon. and learned Member that it would be impossible to put down the Bill at any other time than at eleven o'clock at night, and he understood from him that when it was put down the discussion would not be of a highly critical or controversial nature, but it would only take about two hours to finish the whole of the proceedings on the Bill. The hon. and learned Member would no doubt substantiate that statement. He believed he (Mr. Whiteley) said nearly the same thing to the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford. He told him that the Bill could only be taken at eleven o'clock at night and that the Government preferred to keep to Friday, although they were prepared in order to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite to take it at eleven o'clock. He appealed to hon. Members whether, under the circumstances which he had narrated, it was quite fair to ask for the adjournment of the debate. The Government had gone out of their way to oblige hon. Members opposite, and he himself had had to overcome some great difficulties, as it

  641
  had been necessary to rearrange practically the whole of the business in order to meet the wishes of the Opposition.
  LORD R. CECILsaid he was quite unaware of any of the circumstances to which the Patronage Secretary had alluded. He thought that the hon Gentleman had overlooked one aspect o the case that ought to be considered that was whether it was really possible under present conditions to discuss effectively the very important Amendments to the Bill which still remained on the Paper. As the House knew he was strongly in favour of the Bill, but he thought it was a measure which required most careful consideration, as it made a colossal change in our criminal law system—a change which he thought a very proper one. Though the Bill was discussed in Committee upstairs, he must say that the discussion was not a very thorough one. There did not happen to be any very strong opponents of the Bill present except the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge, with the result that the discussion was on friendly lines. It was eminently a Bill that ought to be discussed by the House at large. Though there had been a great number of different opinions expressed on each of the questions that had been raised, he did not think anyone would say that the discussion that night had not been perfectly legitimate and also useful, and that it had not been directed entirely to improving the Bill. He hoped that they would not be forced to discuss the Bill until five or six o'clock in the morning, as that would be an unfortunate result. With reference to what was done last Friday, might he point out that if the Bill had been set down on that day it would have come on at four or five o'clock in the afternoon? That would not have been the disadvantage to the legal profession that was contemplated by his hon. and learned friend. But if the present Bill had come on at five o'clock the result would have been that the Government would not have been able to get their Butter Bill through, and then they would have been obliged to take it at eleven o'clock at night instead of this Bill. The fact was that it was owing to the backward state in which business was
  642
  that the Government were compelled to take important Bills like this at eleven o'clock at night. It was very unfortunate, and he thought that the Government should show the House some mercy. He earnestly hoped that the Government would consent to the adjournment of the debate and would not insist on the Bill being further discussed at that juncture.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid that the Patronage Secretary had rather appealed to him, and he took that opportunity of thanking the hon. Gentleman for the way in which up to the present he had met him in connection with that Bill. The measure came on unexpectedly for Second Reading and after it had been discussed for a short time the debate was adjourned. The next time the Bill came on the day was a Friday, and the Second Reading took place at a time when practically no legal Gentlemen interested in the question could be there. The measure then went to a Committee upstairs, and he was sure the Attorney-General would bear him out when he said that the discussion was conducted in a most friendly way. The Committee only took two days over the Bill and he himself never pressed for a division on any of his Amendments, but always said that the big points of principle would have to be discussed in the House. On the last day he made a request to the Attorney-General in open Committee that the Bill on the Report Stage should not be put down on a Friday. The Attorney-General said that it was a very reasonable suggestion, and after the way in which the business had been got through before the Committee he would see that the request was granted. He was sure that the Attorney-General and the Patronage Secretary had no means of helping it, but the Bill did come on rather late upon a Friday—about a quarter past three—and the debate was adjourned in the ordinary way at five o'clock. After that he said the Patronage Secretary who was exceedingly kind and asked whether it would be more convenient that the Bill should come on again upon the next Friday or at eleven o'clock at night. He (Mr. Rawlinson) replied that if he

  643
  was given the choice of two evils he would rather have the Bill taken at eleven o'clock at night, but he did not think he was sufficiently an optimist to estimate that two hours would suffice for the discussion, but on the contrary he was under the impression that he put it at about three hours.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that as the Patronage Secretary had mentioned him he would intervene just for one moment. He thought the Patronage Secretary had forgotten the circumstances under which he spoke to him (Sir William Anson) on the subject. What he said had no reference to a sitting after eleven o'clock at night. The Patronage Secretary came to him on the afternoon of last Friday week, after he had made a protest against the Bill being taken when legal Members of the House could not attend. The Patronage Secretary told him the difficulty there was in arranging to take the Bill at any other time and made a suggestion that some portion of time should be taken from the Committee Stage of the Evicted Tenants Bill and given to this measure, if arrangements on those lines could be come to. As the House knew, however, that was not done.
  MR. CAVEthought the Motion for the adjournment of the debate ought to be supported, not at all on the ground
  of the convenience of Members—and least of all those who sat on the Opposition side—but entirely on the question as to whether it was right or fair to discuss a Bill of that importance at the then hour of the night. If they took one of the speeches they had just listened to, it was quite clear that the hon. and learned Member had not made up his mind whether the Amendment under discussion should be accepted or not. He did not think such matters ought to be considered after three and a half hours of a very serious and earnest debate on the merits of the Bill. It was only right that they should have another opportunity of discussing the Amendment, and if the debate were adjourned he did not think it would be necessary to devote more than two hours more to it on some future night after eleven o'clock. He himself told the Patronage Secretary that he thought the debate would take about five hours, and he held that estimate would be much more likely to be realised if they adjourned the debate at that juncture than it would be if they continued till the end of the Bill was reached. The Motion was really a fair one, because it could not be denied that the House ought to have an opportunity of discussing the rest of the Bill at a reasonable hour.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 57; Noes, 120. (Division List No. 342.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt Hn.SirAlex.F.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Forster, Henry William

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry,N.

  Hardy,Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Bertram, Julius

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Smith,F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hervey,F. W.F. (Bury S. Edm'ds

  Starkey, John R.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hunt, Rowland

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cavendish.Rt.Hon.Victor C. W.

  Lane-Fox;, G. R.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt. Col A. R.

  Younger, George

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lyttelton. Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Craig. Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Mr. Salter and Mr. Cave.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  NOES.

  Agnew, George William

  Astbury, John Meir

  Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Bennett, E. N.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Partington, Oswald

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Pearson, W. H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Brunner. J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Price, C. E.)Edinburgh, Central)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Causton, Rt. Hn. RichardKnight

  Hudson, Walter

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Clough, William

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Richards, T. F.(Wolverhampton)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cooper, G. J.

  Jones, Sir D.(Brynmor (Swansea)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex; E. Grinst'd

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lambert, George

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lamont, Norman

  Shaw, Rt, Hn. T. (Hawick B.)

  Crean, Eugene

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Dunne. Major E. Martin(Walsall

  Lough, Thomas

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Elibank, Master of

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Thompson, J. W. H (Somers't, E).

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Macdonald J. R. (Leicester)

  Toulmin, George

  Fenwick, Charles

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down S.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Ferens, T. R.

  M'Crae, George

  Walter, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Maddison, Frederick

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Gill, A. H.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Marks, C. Croydon (Launceston)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Glover, Thomas

  Marnham, F. J.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Massie, J.

  Grayson, Albert Victor

  Morrell, Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gulland, John W.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Mr. Whitley and Mr. J. A.Pease.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare N.)

  MR. RAWLINSONmoved, "To insert after 'entered' in Clause 4, page 3, line 25, 'or may order a new trial at such time and place as they see fit to direct.'" Under the Bill as it stood he contended there was no power given to the Court of Appeal to order a new trial. They must convict or acquit. He ventured to submit that the power to order a new trial should reside in the Court. He would give one or two instances. There was the case where new facts came to the knowledge of the tribunal after the conviction of the prisoner; where, when a man was tried and convicted on evidence, and after his conviction other evidence was forthcoming on such a question as a defence of an alibi or something of that sort. At the present time the tribunal that was to determine the matter was a tribunal of three Judges in London. The case perhaps occurred in Northumberland, Wales or Cornwall. That, he submitted, was unconstitutional and entirely wrong. In such circumstances he submitted the Court ought to have power to order a new trial so that the jury might decide on the
  646
  value of the fresh evidence. For the first time under this Bill it was sought to take a way the power of trying a case in this way by jury. In a case where the Court of Appeal came to the conclusion fresh facts came forward, a jury should try the case and not the Court (Sub-clause 4 of Clause 5), by which in certain cases, if the Court thought fit, though they found a man guilty on the evidence, they could if they thought he was insane at the time the act was committed order him to be locked up during His Majesty's pleasure. It was most monstrous that the Court without the verdict of a jury should have power to find on their own initiative that a man who had been charged with an offence was insane at the time. If the Court came to the conclusion that the man might be mad they ought to have power to try by a fresh jury to determine the question whether he was mad. There were other more complex points raised in the same sub-section. It was as follows:—
  "Where an appellant has been convicted of an offence and the jury could on the indictment have found him guilty of some other

  647
  offence and on the finding of the jury it appears to the Court of Criminal Appeal that the jury must have been satisfied of facts which proved him guilty of that other offence, the Court may, instead of allowing or dismissing the appeal, substitute for the verdict found by the jury a verdict of guilty of that other offence and pass such sentence in substitution for the sentence passed at the trial as they think proper."
  This was a most monstrous proposition. Let him give a concrete example. A man was charged with murder. The jury convicted him of manslaughter. The case came before the Court of Appeal. That Court must necessarily, and from the finding of the jury probably would, come to the conclusion that he had been guilty, that the man should have been convicted of the crime of murder. If they followed the provisions of the Bill it would be their duty to convict him on the evidence. There were other cases of a less extreme character in which the Court had power to convict of some other offence of which by the finding of the jury they gathered he must have been found guilty. It was unnecessary to indicate more fully his reasons. His Amendment simply gave power to the Court to order a new trial. There was one ether point. Throughout the Bill the idea had been to assimilate, as far as practicable, appeals in civil cases to those in criminal cases. It was impossible to imagine an appeal in a civil case in which a new trial could not be got. In the case of a verdict being unsatisfactory the Court of Appeal would, of course, order that a fresh jury should try the case and the case would be re-tried. The analogy had been pressed far too strongly between civil and criminal cases. There was a wide distinction in practice, but to that extent he thought powers should be assimilated in criminal cases and civil.
  MR. CLAVELL SALTER,in seconding, said the Amendment was regarded with great interest, and he thought with great approval by a considerable number of people outside that House who were much interested in the Bill. It was a proposal to allow the Court of Criminal Appeal to exercise what they, in this country, understood to be the essence of a Court of Appeal. He did not think perhaps hon. Members who were not
  648
  lawyers quite realised how novel was the function they were proposing to entrust to the new Court of Criminal Appeal. The ordinary function of a Court of Appeal was the function of a Court which was not charged with ascertaining the truth of the matter which came before it, but which had to inquire whether a Court below it had gone wrong; an entirely different function. That Court for the first time in dealing with the verdict of the jury had not merely to say if the Court below had gone wrong, but had to proceed on its own responsibility to deal with the case. The proposal was that in a proper case, but only in a proper case, the Court of Criminal Appeal should be allowed to exercise the ordinary functions of the Court of Appeal. It seemed to him to be only reasonable. By the practice and procedure of the Civil Court of Appeal, they ought to allow it in the proper case to discharge the ordinary functions of a Court of Criminal Appeal He supported the Amendment on the ground of convenience and of expense. He did not think the bulk of hon. Members, who strongly, and perhaps rightly, supported the Bill, who were not versed in the law, had realised for one moment how great was the amount of inconvenience and expense in which, unless the Bill was amended, they were involving the country. He thought hon. Members would agree with him that the Bill would involve the constant re-trial of a large amount of ordinary criminal work. It was an unthinkable thing that any Court of Appeal would reverse the verdict of a jury, and set at liberty a man whom the jury had convicted without seeing the witnesses. Therefore, the practical question before the House was: Should this re-trial of all ordinary criminal business, which would be a constant feature of our law, take place always in London, or, for the most part, in the localities in which the crime, or alleged crime, was committed. Hon. Members had got the Beck case and the Edalji case in their minds, and they had got the impression that the new Court was going to be mainly, if not entirely, occupied in trying cases of great interest, and great public importance. Nothing could be further from the truth. There was no relation between difficulty and

  649
  importance in legal matters. The cases which came before this Court would not be the important cases, but the difficult cases, and the great bulk of them would be the ordinary run of ordinary criminal work. He hoped the House would not be wearied if he illustrated what he meant, though one tried with some difficulty to deal with matters of that kind at that hour. He would ask hon. Members to follow him for a moment in considering a typical case such as would form the work which the new Court would be called on to do. A man had been convicted at quarter sessions in Northumberland of having stolen three hens. The evidence was not conclusive. The man was seen in the neighbourhood, some feathers were found in his coat pocket, there was some blood on his trousers, he made a damaging admission to a farmer's wife who was a neighbour, and there was certain other evidence of a circumstantial character. At the quarter sessions the man called three or four persons to give evidence as to his presence some considerable distance away. That kind of case would have taken a well-meaning bench and jury a day to try, and it would have involved the attendance away from their business of from twenty to twenty-five people of all kinds and degrees. The jury had convicted the man and the Court of Appeal had sufficient doubt to give leave to appeal. The Question he wanted to put now to hon. Members of the House in all good faith, was, did the Attorney-General or did anybody think that the score of witnesses and the counsel should go before the Judges in London? Where was the need for it? Where was the occasion to take all these unhappy people to London? There would be the local surveyor who had made the plans, the local doctor who had examined the blood-stains, the local parson who had discovered the three feathers in the pocket of the coat, the farmer's wife to whom the damaging admission was made, to say nothing of the unfortunate witnesses for the alibi. He ventured to say that it was approaching an absurdity to suggest that all these people were to be brought up to London it a heavy cost. Was it not more reasonable to give the Court of Appeal the power so say if they had any doubt about that
  650
  verdict that the case had better be retried at the next assizes in Northumberland. One of the great objects of the Bill was said to be to satisfy public opinion, and he would urge on hon. Members that cases in which public opinion was excited throughout the land in regard to a criminal trial were exceedingly rare. The feeling was often purely local, and any public opinion which had been excited in Northumberland over the case he had mentioned would be far better satisfied and set at rest by a local trial on the spot, rather than by calling all these people to London, where the local papers could not come, and in regard to which the people interested would have to depend on what the witnesses told them. He ventured to urge the matter not only on the grounds of convenience and expense, but on behalf of the witnesses who, whether they were a dozen or twenty would be put to considerable trouble. Hon. Members did not realise what a large interest was concerned. He urged it also in the interests of the convicted man, because there was no doubt that if the Court of Appeal in London was compelled to have people up from the ends of the earth, they would be very chary of doing so. They would be much more likely to listen to cases if they had the power to order a local re-trial. If the sessions were far away, if the case was near London, or if it was a matter in which there was great public interest, it could be heard in London in the ordinary course. Such cases were small in number and nine-tenths or ninety-nine-hundredths of the work could be done in the manner he had suggested. If they did that they would be seeking the best way to satisfy public opinion, and would be greatly adding to the effectiveness of the machinery they were creating.
  SIR JOHN WALTON: said his hon. friend was quite right in describing it as a serious Amendment, and he wished to explain the grounds on which he could not accept it. He thought it would be a very great misfortune if they were to vary the provisions of the Bill as it now stood. Broadly, in reply to the opposition which had been propounded, he might say that the new Court of Appeal was only asked to do what the

  651
  Home Office had been doing for years, to see whether convictions were to be maintained or to be set aside. It was in his opinion most desirable that no new development should take place in any Criminal Court, that the State should not be put to the cost of putting all that machinery right for the second ordeal, and that the witnesses should not be subject to the trouble and the prisoner to the ordeal of a second trial. His hon. and learned friend seemed to him to be under a complete misapprehension as to the procedure to be adopted by the Court of Appeal in ordinary cases. He had with dogmatic vigour more than once said that there must be a re-trial of these complicated issues. He altogether protested against the opinion that any such ordeal was necessary. The Court of Appeal in London was constantly dealing with vexed questions of fact in civil proceedings, and in his experience, though they had power under existing rules to have witnesses called before them, it was exceedingly rare that they ever had them called. In criminal cases the evidence that had already been taken, the speeches of counsel, and the summing up of the learned Judge would constitute the materials which the Committee would be called upon to consider. If it was suggested that there were new witnesses who could throw a new light on the case, he supposed that either their affidavits would be produced or the Court would have a statement taken by some competent official. The Court would consider whether those statements were reliable or not, and whether they materially affected the issues which had already been formed, and they would be able to deal with them as materials coming before them for consideration. Then, said the hon. and learned Member: "Oh, but you may have a trial in which it is suggested that a number of the witnesses ought to be sworn over again," and he assumed that the only method under the Bill itself would be to summon all those witnesses and to examine them again. It was possible, however, that the Court might send one of its own members to hear the statements of these witnesses and to form an opinion upon their reliability, with power to communicate his views to his fellow members, or the
  652
  Court might send a Commissioner who might take the evidence of the witnesses on oath and subject them to cross-examination. It would be a great hardship if a number of local witnesses had to be called to London in order that the whole trial might be gone through afresh. The result of the examination of the materials by the Court of Criminal Appeal would be to elicit vital facts and points, and if on those points it was suggested that new evidence could be collected the Court had power to collect that evidence. If it was suggested that the examination of some witness who was present at the trial would throw considerable light on the inquiry, he might be called. So that the House would see, there was ample machinery to enable the Court to do all that the Home Secretary could do at the present time. His right hon. friend the Home Secretary seemed to think that it was quite foreign to the practice of the Home Office to go through that process of retrial. They did not have all the witnesses up and reconstruct the case in the manner which had been suggested. If that was not necessary in the case of the Home Office—the ideal tribunal of his hon. and learned friend—why was it necessary for this Court of Criminal Appeal? As a matter of fact the Court would have ample power to get at the truth in the way they thought proper, and he did not think the argument which had been advanced was a good one. What were the objections to a new trial? He submitted in the first place that it was desirable in the interests of criminal justice that there should be one trial, and one trial only. There should also be a Court of review with the responsibility of deciding whether that trial had been satisfactory and whether the conviction should be quashed or not. The objection to the alternative method of his hon. and learned friends was that it was derived purely from civil proceedings. In civil proceedings they had two parties who were struggling to establish some right which was in controversy. The Court of Appeal might come to the conclusion that the trial by a jury had been for some reason unfairly or unsatisfactorily conducted. They might say to the parties, "If you are deter-

  653
  mined to litigate to a conclusion you must submit to a new trial." That analogy, he submitted, had no parallel in the criminal law. There were no parties in the sense he had described. There was no struggle for an issue. There was the State represented by the Crown which was bringing an accused person to justice, and the accused person had the right to have his guilt determined by the verdict of the jury. If the verdict of the jury had convicted him his rights were all exhausted as the law now stood. In the absence of some error on the part of the tribunal the door was closed, and there was no hope for him except by an appeal to the clemency of the Crown through the Home Secretary. What was suggested was that they should try to see if something more could not be done; and if so, was not the proposal in the Bill the best that could be done for the accused person? What was the proposal? What the Government said was this: If a prisoner wished that his case should be subjected to review by three of the most trained judicial intellects that the country can bring to bear on it he must ask for leave to appeal and the Court must examine the evidence, must consider the summing-up of the judge, and must take all the steps which were necessary to satisfy themselves whether the verdict of the jury was so far satisfactory that the executive would be justified in enforcing it. If they came to the conclusion that it was a satisfactory verdict there was no reason why they should not give effect to that view, and they would, as a matter of fact, express that opinion. If, on the other hand, they concluded that the verdict could not be regarded as satisfactory they would express an opinion to that effect. That was what was offered by this Bill. He did not think it was unsatisfactory. It certainly afforded no ground for complaint on the part of the prisoner, and he thought it would ensure to the satisfaction of the community that public justice was being done. He asked them to think for a moment of the scandal of this suggested new trial. Suppose they had a criminal cause like a great murder trial which occupied several days, and in the course of which a vast amount of evidence was submitted. The jury,
  654
  came to a particular conclusion, and it might be that public sympathy was considerably moved in connection with the case. But because of that was all that ordeal to be gone through over again? Was it desirable that, having once tried and once convicted that person under such painful circumstances, they should go through all that form, again in the interests of some abstract standard of justice? He thought that I when the jury had convicted a prisoner and he was given an opportunity of having the materials fully reviewed by a competent body, which decided that there was no ground for disturbing the verdict of the jury, then they should I have confidence in leaving the man in prison. If they thought that there had been on the part of the jury a misconception of the issue as it was left to them by the judge, or that the judge had directed the attention of the jury to what were really subsidiary and not critical considerations, and that therefore the trial had not been satisfactory, then it might be set aside. What did his hon. and learned friends say? They said that, having arrived at that conclusion, the Court were not to have the power to give effect to it; that the verdict ought to be quashed and that they must hand the question over to be tried again. He used the word "must," because he took it that the "may" of his hon. and learned friends might mean "must." He believed that if a new trial was provided for there would be a tendency to have a repetition of criminal trials in a great number of cases. His hon. and learned friends must consider this difficulty. They were in this dilemma. It was perfectly clear that no new trial could be ordered unless there was serious doubt and unless in the opinion of the Court of Appeal justice demanded it. If the Courts sent down a case to be tried again because there was such a doubt in it that justice demanded it should be tried again, the prisoner was entitled to the benefit of that doubt and would get it as a matter of course. So that the very ground on which a new trial was ordered would entitle him to get clear upon the ground that the doubt existed.
  MR. RAWLINSON: Or if there are fresh facts.
  SIR JOHN WALTONsaid that, apart from fresh facts, they would have the defence of prisoners in these cases reduced to a common formula. They would be told that a former jury convicted, and that the Court of Appeal having examined the evidence had come to the conclusion that the verdict was unsatisfactory, and had ordered a new trial. They would be told that there was a doubt, and an irresistible plea would be made to the jury to give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt. The result was that in many crises the acquittal of a prisoner who had been ordered to be tried again would follow almost as a matter of course. Then in the case of fresh evidence, was it wise to have a new trial with all the disadvantages of costs and the difficulty attending that investigation? If they had fresh evidence that evidence must be brought before the consideration of the Court of Appeal. It would be collected in the various ways he had indicated. It would be the subject of affidavits obtained either by a commissioner or by a member of the Court. The Court would then see whether the evidence had a bearing on the trial, whether it was reliable, whether it was likely to have weight, and whether they were satisfied that it was true. Having ascertained all those points, why should not the Court of Appeal give effect to that evidence? They knew all the issues, and they knew how the jury had decided. Why should they not, just as well as a jury, consider the bearing of that new evidence on the issues which had already been ascertained? The jury had found against the man, and he was now before as competent a tribunal of either law or fact as could be found in either this or any other country. He could not see why they should hesitate to accept the findings of the Court on the question of whether the new evidence it was proposed to introduce would alter the statements or not. There would be no danger to the community and no unsatisfactory operation of the criminal law. There was only one other observation, and it was this: The practical difficulty in the way of providing for new trials was
  656
  enormous. In the first place, a man could not be tried over again at his own expense. He must be defended at the expense of the country. Witnesses must all be kept for an indefinite period at the expense of the country, and if the assizes were held in the West of England, say, in February and November, during the whole of this interval a large number of persons would have to be kept more or less in hand (many of them boarded and lodged to prevent them going abroad) ready for the new trial. Not only were the practical difficulties in the way of arranging for a new trial so very great, but in his opinion that was demanded neither in the interests of the accused nor in the interests of justice. They were under no obligation to have a man tried twice over by a jury who had once had his right of trial by jury exhausted. The provision of the Bill was the simplest, safest and most satisfactory remedy the Government could offer.
  MR. LANE-FOXsaid the right hon. Gentleman had argued very vigorously against the proposal, but his arguments might have been used in a more emphatic form against the proposal in the Bill of the previous year. In that Bill they had not an optional proposal as was suggested. The trial was made obligatory. The Home Secretary had power just now to alter sentences. If this Bill passed there would be nothing whatever between letting a man off altogether or leaving his conviction to stand. It seemed, therefore, to him the presumption would be against the man, because unless the Court was satisfied the evidence was such that they could acquit him they would be bound to leave the conviction as it was. There would be no chance of intervention like the Home Secretary's. He spoke, of course, under correction. The question of expense was also dealt with by the Attorney-General, who used words about the abstract standard of justice, and rather contemptuously applied them to the objection which was being urged against the clause. It seemed to him there was considerable expense now in cases where the jury disagreed. Still, if by re-trial they gained pure justice it was worth a considerable amount.
  MR. GREENWOODsaid he had an Amendment on the Paper on the subject of whether the Court of Appeal in criminal cases should have the power of ordering a new trial. His Amendment was to the effect that where new facts, material to the issue of the guilt or innocence of the prisoner were brought before the Court of Appeal which were not before the jury in the Court below, in that case, at any rate, the Court of Appeal should have in their discretion the right to direct a new trial. Did hon. Members realise what a change was being brought into our criminal law administration? That particular Bill was a unique Bill. If differed from all previous Bills establishing a Criminal Court of Appeal. He did not think it lay with the Attorney-General to put on one side as preposterous the idea of granting a new trial in criminal cases, because provision had been made for a new trial in every previous Bill establishing such a Court. It was so in the Criminal Code Bill of 1878, introduced by Sir James Stephen and other great authorities, in the Bill introduced by the Lord Chancellor in the other House last year, and in every intermediate Bill. But the Bill before the House provided in no case that there should be granted a new trial. The Amendment gave discretion to the Court to order a new trial when there were new facts. A case could easily be conceived in which new and material facts might be brought before the Court of Appeal which were quite sufficient to raise doubt and yet not sufficient to make it clear that the prisoner's conviction ought to be quashed. What was to happen in that case? The Judges might be divided. He had heard it said that in any such ease where there was a doubt the Judges would quash the conviction, and that had been spoken of as if it was the natural thing to do. If that were so it would be very bad for the law. It was better that ten guilty men should be acquitted than that one innocent man should be convicted, but it was also a saying in the law "Judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur." Supposing the Judges were all of one mind in favour of upholding the conviction, what would happen? The prisoner would have no trial by jury at all on the
  658
  new matters. The Judges were put in the place of the juries.Ex hypothesi the new facts were material facts which were not brought before the attention of the jury. There was a very well-known saying of Lord Hardwicke's that it would be a very bad day for the administration of law in this country if ever the separate functions of Judge and jury got confused. The Judge's function was to determine the law and the jury's to define the facts. Might he bring before the House what the late Mr. Montagu Williams used to say was the most remarkable case he had ever known— The Hatton Garden Case. The facts might be put very briefly. An Italian was put on his trial for the murder of a man in a fracas in a public-house in Hatton Garden. He was brought to trial and convicted on what seemed the clearest possible evidence. The murder was committed by an Italian—he was the only Italian. Several witnesses swore they had known him for years and he was actually taken to the death-bed of the man who was murdered and identified by him. He was sentenced to death. Shortly afterwards suspicion fell upon another man. He was brought back back and put on his trial for manslaughter and he was convicted. They had the extraordinary case of a man being convicted of murder and sentenced to death and another man being convicted on the same facts of manslaughter. Well, they could not have that fresh trial under the present Acts, and it would mean that the Judges would have to say whether the two men were guilty or not. That was a responsibility which they ought not to put on the judges. For that reason he would, if his hon. and learned friend pressed the matter to a division, support him in the lobby.
  Motion made, and Question put, "In page 3, line 25, at end, insert the words 'Provided that if the appeal shall be allowed on the ground that the verdict of the jury ought to be set aside the Court may, in lieu of directing a verdict of acquittal, order the appellant to be retried on the indictment by such Court and at such time and place as shall be specified in the order, and thereupon the appellant shall be re-tried accordingly.'"
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 41: Noes, 116. (Division List No. 343.)

  AYES.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gill, A. H.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Glover, Thomas

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hervey, F. W. F. (BuryS. Edm'ds

  Starkey, John R.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hill. Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hunt, Rowland

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cave, George

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Cavendish. Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Vounger, George

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Morpeth, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Pease, Herbert Pike)Darlington

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Viscount Valentia.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Remnant. James Farquharson

  Forster, Henry William

  Renton, Major Leslie

  NOES.

  Agnew, George William

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Massie, J.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Morrell, Philip

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Grayson, Albert Victor

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Astbury, John Meir

  Gulland, John W.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Partington, Oswald

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Beauchamp. E.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Pickersgill. Edward Hare

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pollard, Dr.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh. Central

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Bowerman, C. W;

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Richards, T. F)Wolverhampt on)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Hudson, Walter

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Causton, Rt. Hn. RichardKnight

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Scarisbrick. T. T. L.

  Clough, William

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Collins, Sir Wm. J(S. Pancras, W.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Shaw, Rt, Hon. T. (Hawick. B.)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Lambert, George

  Sherwell. Arthur James

  Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd.)

  Lamont, Norman

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Straus, V. S. (Mile End)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Leese,Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Crean, Eugene

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thompson. J. W. H.(Somerset, E)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lough, Thomas

  Toulmin, George

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Walters, John Tudor

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Elibank, Master of

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Evans, Samuel T.

  M'Crae, George

  White, Luke ((York, E. R.)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Whiteley, John Henry(Halifax)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Maddison, Frederick

  Ferens, T. R,

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Marnham, F. J.

  MR. LYTTELTONsaid he thought the time had arrived when the debate should cease. During the last hour and a half they had had two Amendments moved by his hon. friend behind him which the Attorney-General was compelled to ad-
  660
  mit were required, for he had admitted that the Bill as it stood required Amendment, and promised to amend it. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge a second admission was made in the fullest

  661
  and frankest terms, and was bound to be made by the Attorney-General, that the subject was one of the greatest importance. They had now debated the Bill for nearly five hours. The Patronage Secretary seemed to be pleased at that, he would remind him that an understanding was given by the Attorney-General that the Bill should not be taken on a Friday if it could possibly be avoided, and therefore the understanding which the Patronage Secretary had endeavoured to put forward that night really did not exist in fact at all.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid the understanding was with the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University who had endorsed all that he had said. The right hon. Gentleman could not get behind that, while the Attorney-General had denied more than once that he had given any pledge.
  MR. LYTTELTONsaid he had never said there had been a pledge. He had said there had been an understanding that the matter should not be discussed on a Friday, therefore, it was only in the natural course of events that the Bill
  should have been adjourned till eleven o'clock. No one who had heard the debate could possibly charge anyone with obstruction. If such charge were made it would have to be made against hon. Members opposite as well as against the Opposition, for in every division and every discussion they had had the support of some Ministerialists. Considering that the matter had been repeatedly declared by the Government to be of importance, and considering that the Attorney-General recognising in the Committee upstairs that he had been extremely well treated by the Opposition, he thought it was straining the powers of the Government to continue the debate. It was the only debate they had had since the Second Reading which was on a Friday, and the entirety of it had been taken between the hours of eleven and four o'clock. He moved the adjournment of the House.
  Question put, "That the further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 42; Noes, 110. (Division List No. 344.)

  AYES

  Acland-Hood. Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Richards, T. F.(Wolverhampton

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Crean, Eugene

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Forster, Henry William

  Staveley-Hill, Henry(Staff'sh.

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hudson, Walter

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Younger, George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras. W.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Rawlinson and Mr. John O'Connor,

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Pease, Herbert Pike)Darlington

  NOES.

  Agnew, George William

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)

  Brunner. J. F. L. (Lanes.,Leigh)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Astbury, John Meir

  Burns, Rt. Hon..John

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. RichardKnight

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Dunne. Major E. Martin)Walsall

  Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

  Clough, William

  Elibank, Master of

  Beauchamp, E.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Bennett, E. N.

  Corbett, C. H.(Sussex, F, Grinst'd

  Fenwick, Charles

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Grayson, Albert Victor

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lough, Thomas

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Gulland, John W.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  M'Crae, George

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Worc'r)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Starkey, John R.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Straus. B. S. (Mile End)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Marnham, F. J.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Massie, J.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Morrell, Philip

  Thompson, J. W H(Somerset, E.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Toulmin, George

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Partingson, Oswald

  Walters, John Tudor

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds. S.)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Lambert, George

  Pollard, Dr.

  Lamont. Norman

  Price, C. E.(Edinbugh, Central)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  MR. RAWLINSONproposed, "In page 3, line 29, after the word ' other' to insert the words' less severe.'" The effect of the Amendment, he said, was this: As the Bill stood now, if a man appealed from his sentence the Court of Appeal could reduce his sentence or they could increase it. The object of the Amendment was to prevent the Court increasing sentences; that was to say, they must either leave a sentence as it was, or they must reduce it. The Amendment was in accordance with the ordinary rules of fair-play and of English justice in the criminal law as it stood at the present time. If a man wished to appeal from a sentence because he believed that, say, a term of six months imprisonment was an excessive sentence, then the Bill stepped in and held out a threat to him so as to prevent him using this right of appeal. The idea appeared to be to make the man believe that he had better not appeal in that way, because if he did he might get his sentence increased to nine months. Unless a man had the gambling spirit he would probably take his six months and say no more about it. Was that a fair way of dealing with prisoners under the criminal law? He submitted that it was not. He believed that the House of Commons would not lend itself lightly to such a proceeding. If they accepted the Amendment which he suggested, it would prevent the Court
  664
  of Appeal increasing a sentence simply for the purpose of deterring other persons; from appealing in the same way. The speech of the present Lord Chancellor put in stronger language than he could do the undesirability of appeal in the form at present in the Bill. The Lord Chancellor said it was not necessary to introduce an artificial limit such as the Bill (that was the Bill of the hon. Member below the gangway) proposed, to the effect that the Court of Criminal Appeal should have power to increase sentences. That was repugnant to the entire spirit of the criminal law. The spirit of the criminal law always inclined towards mercy rather than severity. Let the Courts diminish sentences as much as they pleased, but to increase them was revolting to everyone and to the custom and the temper of our Courts of Justice. That speech of the Lord Chancellor's, the hon. and learned Member continued, expressed the distinct arguments which he was putting before the douse. It was revolting to the ordinary principles carried out in our Courts of Justice at the present time that such extraordinary powers should be given to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: seconded the Amendment. He had noticed that for a long time past in that House they had been following wherever they could Continental procedure. They had in many cases amended to advantage their

  665
  procedure by following the example of the Continent. For example, they had given a right to the prisoner to go into the witness-box and to testify in his own behalf. But if there was one thing more than another in Continental procedure that the legal mind of this country disapproved of, it was the power to increase the sentences given in Courts of First Instance. It was because he believed that power would be repugnant to those engaged in the practice of law in this country that he seconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 3, line 29, after the words 'other,' to insert the words 'less severe.'"—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid that he did not think the Amendment was necessary in order to give effect to the very natural wishes of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, that a man who appealed on the ground that his sentence was too severe was to have the severity of the sentence increased. He submitted, however, that the Bill, as it was now drawn, was in its proper form; because one must consider how the question arose. When an appeal was brought on the part of a convicted person who said that he had been improperly or excessively punished, he was dissatisfied with the opinion of the tribunal which had sentenced him. He said either that period of imprisonment had been too long, or that it was a case in which the sentence ought not to have been inflicted at all, or that he ought to have been sentenced as a misdemeanant in the first class. What did that proceeding mean? Its effect was that a petition was addressed to the Court of Appeal to substitute its view for the view of the tribunal whose decision was challenged. When they appealed to Cæsar and asked for Cæar's opinion, surely they must accept it. When a man said that he was dissatisfied with his sentence on one of the grounds stated, the Court of Appeal were entitled to consider the sentence. The practical result was this, that they applied to the case principles of general application. It was because the ap-
  666
  pellant complained that the principles of general and just application were not present in the tribunal from which he appealed that he asked the Court of Appeal to apply these principles. Was penal servitude more or less severe than imprisonment with hard labour? In the general opinion of the profession two years imprisonment with hard labour was infinitely more severe than three years of penal servitude, and it became a question of opinion whether the Court below pronounced a sentence which was more or less severe. The Court might say, "You have been sentenced to penal servitude. We think the class of offence demands a sentence of twelve months imprisonment." Probably the accused would rather have, say, three years penal servitude than the far more rigorous sentence of one year's imprisonment. It would result in this, that the Court of Criminal Appeal would have to ask the accused person which he would prefer and they would have the accused person exercising a choice. That was an anomalous and undignified situation. He would suggest that the better way was that if an appeal was brought against the sentence the Court of Criminal Appeal should have full and not restricted powers of dealing with it. They should be able to inflict an alternative sentence which in their opinion was appropriate.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid that so far as he read the Bill, it was entirely in the option of the Court of Criminal Appeal to give a more or less severe punishment. He was bound to support the Attorney-General. They did not want to encourage unnecessary appeals, and the Amendment would do so.
  MR. BOWLESsaid he could not help thinking the Amendment would turn out to be of considerable practical importance. After listening to the speech of the Attorney-General he had come to the conclusion that the weight of argument in this matter was in favour of the Amendment. As had been pointed out, the matter was not one for lawyers primarily, but for laymen. The man whom the Bill concerned was not the lawyer, but the man in the dock. Hon. Gentlemen on both sides would agree that the number

  667
  of lawyers who found themselves in that position was for some inexplicable reason singularly small. What they suggested was that it should be specifically guaranteed to the man who appealed against his sentence that justice should not turn against him so that he was put in a worse position than if the Court had never existed. The Attorney-General did not see that any security was necessary. He thought it would rarely, if ever, be necessary. In other words he confessed that the man might find himself in a position which every man in the House would agree ought not to be possible. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he could scarcely imagine such a case. The case would be very hard, very remarkable, very rare. But if it could occur, they ought to make the small alteration which was suggested. The Attorney-General said that when a man appealed to Cæsar he must abide by the decision of Cæsar. Yes, but it was that House that was Cæsar. It was for that House to set up that Court, and theirs was the responsibility in connection with it. Finally, the hon. and learned Gentleman used an argument which, with all respect, was unworthy, when he said it was a matter of conjecture and opinion whether or not one sentence was more severe than another. If that was so, the words proposed to be taken out should be taken out if only on the ground that they were on the hon. and learned Gentleman's own showing, meaningless.
  *MR. CLAVELL SALTERconsidered the Government were perfectly right in resisting the Amendment. It was not a question of a more merciful or severer sentence, but of a just sentence. If a man asked for a just sentence the Courts ought to pass a just sentence without respect to a sentence in another Court. If the Amendment were carried there would be a number of frivolous appeals.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid the Court was to take the place of the Home Secretary as regarded revision of sentence. The Home Secretary had power to alter a sentence at the present time, but none to increase. He supposed the Home Secretary knew what sentence was more and less severe. If the Bill was really to be in favour of prisoners, prisoners ought
  668
  not to be placed m a worse position than before.
  *MR. CAVEmoved to leave out subsection 2 of Clause 5. He thought the best argument he could use in favour of the Amendment was to read the subsection. It would some what surprise those Members who had not read it. It was—
  "Where an appellant hits been convicted of an offence and the jury could on the indictment have found him guilty of some other offence, and on the finding of the jury it appears to the Court of Criminal Appeal that the jury must have been satisfied of facts which proved him guilty of that other offence, the Court may instead of allowing or dismissing the appeal substitute for the verdict found by the jury a verdict of guilty of that other offence and pass such sentence in substitution for the sentence passed at the trial as they think proper."
  This was one of the most extraordinary provisions in the Bill. The effect of it was that a man who had been tried for a certain offence and had been convicted and sentenced, and who appealed, and satisfied the Court of Appeal that he had not been properly convicted of that offence, could yet without a further trial be sentenced for another offence. If the Court of Appeal came to the conclusion that he was not guilty of offence A, they might yet convict him of offence B, an offence with which he had never been charged, and for which he had never been put on his trial, and sentence him for that offence. If the man had been. charged with the second offence he might have been able to defend himself and the facts material to that charge would have been considered and brought before the jury. But under this provision the man was never given a chance of taking this course. The Court might be satisfied that the jury must have thought the prisoner guilty of the second offence, but the jury had not found a verdict to that effect, and it seemed improper that the man should be convicted of an offence of which he had never in fact been found by a jury to be guilty. Surely the proper remedy was to order a new trial. He was informed that in Committee the sub-section was insisted on, but he hoped the Government would see fit to omit it now.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill.
  "In page 3, line 38, to leave out Sub-section (2) of Clause 5."—(Mr. Cave.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid he would like to know whether the Attorney-General could so alter the sub-section as to make it certain that there should be no increase of the sentences. There were many cases where if a man was indicted for a serious offence such as murder he might be found guilty of manslaughter, but if a man was brought before the Court of Appeal after being found guilty of manslaughter the verdict could be increased to murder, according to the words of the clause. In like manner a man was often charged with a serious offence of firing at with intent to kill, or with assault and was found guilty of a lesser offence. He thought that it was the spirit of the proposed law that sentences should not be increased, but according to the wording of the clause the sentence might be increased. He did not say he would go into the lobby with his hon. friend, but he would like some assurance that the Court would not be able to take the action he had mentioned. He wished to hear what the Attorney-General had to say in regard to the matter before making up his mind which lobby he would go into.
  *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid ho was astonished that his hon. and learned friend should have not only failed to understand that clause of the Bill, but suggested that it was unreasonable and incapable of defence. His hon. and learned friend had overlooked the whole category of cases with which the clause proposed to deal. It was essential that a Court of Criminal Appeal should have power to take some action in the cases contemplated. In a charge of murder in which the jury might have found the prisoner guilty of manslaughter, the case might be one in which the question whether murder could or could not have been found was still open to argument, the Court of Appeal might come to the conclusion that the verdict for murder could not stand, but the minor offence of manslaughter was committed. Without the clause the Court of Appeal must set that man free, which would be reducing their functions to an absurdity. It was not necessary that there should
  670
  be a second count in the indictment. He had appeared in many cases where there had been no second count. On the count of murder it was possible to find manslaughter, on a charge of rape it was possible to find criminal assault or indecent assault. It was obvious that the Court of Appeal must have the power to. arrive at the conclusion that the larger offence involved the lesser. On that principle they ought to be able to punish a man for the less offence. He really did not know a case in which the relationship between the larger and the smaller case was not a relationship of larger and less. But in order to prevent any element of opinion arising there they simply put in the words, "shall pass such sentence in substitution of the sentence passed at the trial." If they wore to put in the words "such less sentence" or "in relation to such less sentence," in the clause it would raise questions of opinion. For instance, in connection with the case of a charge of larceny, was felonious receiving to be considered a less offence or a greater offence? Was receiving a greater offence than stealing, or a less offence? He had heard different opinions expressed on that point, and therefore he thought it necessary to say that the two offences must be different, but not necessarily "greater" and "less." Still in finding a man guilty of one the Court must clearly find that the jury considered him to be guilty. There was a very large category of cases to which this section applied. They were all of the same nature. For example, on a charge of obtaining money by false j pretences they could find a man guilty of larceny by a trick. The facts must be such that the Court could come to the conclusion that the jury put a wrong construction on the case. In his view that was clear, and he opposed the Amendment.
  MR. BOTTOMLEYasked the hon. and learned Attorney-General if he would be good enough to enlighten the House on one specific point he wished to put to him under this subsection. Would it be competent for the Court of Criminal Appeal sitting on a case of manslaughter to find the appellant guilty of murder?
  SIR JOHN WALTONsaid that in his opinion it would clearly not be

  671
  possible. He thought if the hon. Member looked at the section he would see that they could not do so. The only case that could arise was that of an indictment for murder and a conviction for murder. The Court of Appeal must fin that the jury must have decided the prisoners guilt of manslaughter, which was the other offence of which, under the Statute, the jury could have convicted him of.
  MR. BOWLESremarked that the hon and learned Attorney-General had said that under this section as it stood it would be competent to turn a jury's verdict c murder into a verdict of manslaughter He said, however, that it would not be competent for the Court of Appeal to reverse that process. He had no doubt that since the Attorney-General assure them that it was so, it was so, but from merely reading the section he did no gather that opinion. The Attorney General appeared to assume that the jury; in putting its wrong construction upon the facts always put too harsh a construction. What he thought the House would like to have an assurance from the Attorney-General upon was this: What was to happen in the Court of Criminal Appeal when the jury in the Court of Firs' Instance put a construction on the facts which was not too harsh, but too lenient The jury having found on a certain set of facts, for reasons of their own, that a case was one not of murder but of manslaughter, was there anything in this section which under those circumstances would prevent the Court of Criminal Appeal from acting in the reverse direction? Was there anything to prevent the Court of Appeal saying, "It is true that the jury said that in their opinion it was only manslaughter; but we are lawyers, we are much wiser on this matter of fact than the jury from the locality which tried the case. We say as lawyers, the facts have been found to be so and so, that it must be held to be murder." That surely was a serious matter. It was a matter as regards which they were entitled to something more than a mere assertion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, because it was evident that the section might work both ways. They would therefore have an avowal by the House of Commons for he first time in the history of the country that a man might be convicted
  672
  and punished not by the unanimous agreement of a jury of his fellow countrymen, but by agreement of a majority of Judges sitting in London, The opinion of the lawyer was set above the opinion of the lay juror—above what was usually the reasonable and sound a opinion of twelve men taken from the e district haphazard. When they allowed that instructed legal opinion, acting without a jury, to produce results of that kind he maintained that the House of Commons was clearly bound to be quite sure on the point that this Court, which might work such great changes in lightening sentences under this section, would not work far more dangerous changes in the way of increasing sentences.
  SIR W. J. COLLINSsaid that while he was in favour of the general principle of the Bill, he confessed that the last two Amendments had raised rather disquieting considerations in his mind. After reading over the section he was bound to say that it appeared to him that if the Court of Appeal could reduce the major offence to the minor offence, there was no reason why they should not act in the opposite direction. The Bill was intended to work for the amelioration of the law, but this clause and the preceding clause might, it seemed to him, work in the direction of aggravating the severity of the administration of the law. He repeated that he felt somewhat disquieted by the considerations raised in connection with this Amendment, and he trusted that the clause might be modified in accordance with it.
  *MR. CLAVELL SALTERconfessed that he had great difficulty in seeing that the meaning attached to the sub-section by the hon. and learned Attorney-General was the only meaning. Let them assume the case of a man who was indicted for rape. Upon that indictment the jury could, if it pleased, find a man guilty of indecent assault. Let them suppose that on that indictment the man was found guilty of indecent assault, and that against that conviction he appealed. The Court of Appeal on hearing the ease are satisfied not only that there was an indecent assault, but that there were present in fact all the essential facts of rape. In those circumstances how would the matter

  673
  stand under this sub-section? The appellant had been convicted of the offence of indecent assault and the Court of Appeal had found him guilty of some other offence—namely, that of rape. On the finding of the jury it appeared that the Court of Criminal Appeal must be satisfied that it was proved he was guilty of rape. The Court of Appeal would then substitute for the verdict found by the jury a verdict of guilty of rape, and would pass such sentence in substitution for the sentence passed at the trial as they thought proper—that was, a severer sentence. It appeared to him to be very difficult indeed to be satisfied with the view expressed by the Attorney-General that the only meaning of the sub-section was the meaning he had put upon it. If he substituted the word "lesser" for the word "other" throughout the sub-section he would amply secure the end that he aimed at.
  *SIR JOHN WALTONdid not see the least difficulty in construing this section in the spirit of the speech which he had addressed to the House. He had avoided the use of the expression "lesser" or "greater" because it imputed a difference of opinion. He had already given the House various instances m which this element of opinion might be introduced. He thought they could not discriminate by using as an alternative expression "major" and "minor," but they might in his view discriminate by using "other offence" and "the other offence." If hon. Members looked at the first part of the sub-section they would see that it only applied to cases in which by reason of the statute the jury might find a man guilty of some other offence than that with which he was charged. If the finding of the jury was murder, the jury must have been satisfied that the man was guilty of manslaughter. If he was indicted for murder they had in manslaughter that other offence. It was idle to talk of the man as being convicted by the Court without having been convicted by the jury in such a case, because the jury had convicted him of the major offence.
  MR. BOWLES: What of the reverse case?
  SIR JOHN WALTONsaid there was no reverse case. The only case provided for was where on an indictment for the major charge the man might be found guilty on the minor: where, on a charge of murder, manslaughter might be found; on a charge of maliciously wounding, unlawfully wounding; on a charge of infanticide, concealment of birth; on a charge of rape, indecent assault. The words were in the Bill as originally introduced, and if there was any obscurity about them a change could be effected.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNORasked if the case did not arise where the Court might consider the jury were satisfied as to facts which involved in a verdict of murder when they found manslaughter?
  MR. J. MACVEAGHsaid the debate had raised considerable doubt in his mind as to the effect of the clause. The Attorney-General said the only appeal contemplated under the clause was from a conviction for a major offence which the prisoner sought to have reduced to a minor. Was there anything in the Act that prevented the Court of Appeal from turning a conviction on the minor offence into a, conviction on the major? Was there any clause that prevented the Court of Appeal increasing a conviction from manslaughter to murder? That raised an entirely new principle in British law—that a man could be convicted on a charge possibly not made against him at all, in regard to which, indeed, no evidence might have been brought before the jury.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid he had raised the point on Second Reading and in Committee, and it had not yet been answered. The case he put was this. A man was indicted for murder. The jury found him guilty of manslaughter. He appealed and the facts indicated to the Court of Appeal that the man was guilty of murder. Let them read the section. It appeared that where an appellant had been convicted of an offence—say manslaughter—and a jury could on an indictment have found him guilty of some offence—murder—and when on the finding of the jury it appeared to the Court of Criminal Appeal that the jury must

  675
  have been satisfied of' the facts which proved the man guilty of that other offence—murder—the Court might substitute for the verdict found by the jury— manslaughter—a verdict of guilty of that other offence—murder.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry, Tyrone, N.)said that the difference between manslaughter and murder was the absence or presence of malice as a fact. If the jury found a man guilty of manslaughter they must be taken as having negatived the fact of malice.
  *MR. CAVEsaid the Attorney-General endeavoured to lead the House to believe that he (Mr. Cave) had so little experience in connection with the Criminal Law that he had overlooked the whole class of cases
  to which this sub-clause related. He did not claim to be learned in the Criminal Law, but he certainly knew the very elementary rules which the Attorney-General had put before the House. He was also in the habit of applying the principles of fair play, and he held that to enable a Court to alter the verdict of a jury in the manner proposed was an infringement of those principles of the fair play which were a part of British law. He had moved his Amendment knowing perfectly well the facts to which the Attorney-General had referred, and he thought the speeches afterwards made had justified his action. He thought that it was his duty to press for a division.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 91; Noes, 44. (Division List No. 345.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, George William

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pearson, W. K. M.(Suffolk, Eye)

  Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)

  Gulland, John W.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Astbury, John Meir

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

  Hedges, A. Paget.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Higham, John Sharp

  Richards, T. F (Wolverhampton)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hudson, Walter

  Scarisbrick. T. T. L.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Sherwell. Arthur James

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Silcock. Thomas Ball

  Causton, Rt. Hn. RichardKnight

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Chance, Frederick William

  Lamont, Norman

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Clough, William

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Strauss. E. A. (Abingdon)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Corbett, CH(Sussex, E. Grins' td)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thompson, J W H (Somerset, E.)

  Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Toulmin, George

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  M'Crae, George

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  White. George (Norfolk)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Maddison, Frederick

  White, Luke (York. E. R.)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Elibank, Master of

  Marnham, F. J.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Massie. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Morrell, Philip

  MR. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Ferens, T. R.

  Partington, Oswald

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Arkwirght, John Stanhope

  Catslereagh. Viscount

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Barrie, H. T.)London Jerry. N.)

  Cavendish. Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

  Courthope. G. Loyd

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

  Crean, Eugene

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Douglas, Rt Hon. A. Akers-

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Flavin. Michael Joseph

  Lockwood. Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Starkey, John R.

  Forster. Henry William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Grayson, Albert Victor

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Younger, George

  Hervey, F. W. F.(BuryS. Edm'ds

  Rawlinson. Sohn Frederick Peel

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Renton, Major Leslie

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—MR. Cave and Mr. Staveley Hill.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  MR. RAWLINSONsaid the next Amendment he had to move was a purely technical one to leave out the word "verdiet," and insert the word "finding." He would not trouble the House to divide on it, but he could not imagine where the wording came from. He imagined it was meant to apply in the case where a jury had found a special finding. It was, however, purely a question of drafting. He imagined the Attorney-General would accept it.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 4, line 9, to leave out the word verdict' and insert the word "finding.' "—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That the word ' verdict' stand part of the Bill."
  SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he did not know where his hon. and learned friend had got his information as to drafting of Acts of Parliament. The word used was the right word, and was used advisedly, not in the sloppy, wishy-washy way the hon. and learned Gentleman supposed. It was proper that the word should be there.
  MR. RAWLINSONwished to point out that possibly if the Attorney-General had gone on reading he would have found that the special verdict was a technical point. He did not, however, wish to detain the House with the matter.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. RAWLINSONmoved to leave out Subsection, 4. The effect of the section as it stood was that when a person who was charged with an offence appealed against the sentence the Court of Appeal might come to the conclusion that he had committed the offence, but was mad at the time he committed it. By that clause
  678
  the Court had power to detain him during His Majesty's pleasure. The power they were giving to the Court of' Appeal was that the Court could come to the conclusion that the man was insane at the time he committed the act and bring in a verdict to that effect. It was one of the points he had brought before the House in connection with the granting of a new trial. Quito apart from the question of trial by jury he submitted that it was absolutely wrong that a man should be found insane who never set up that defence and did not wish that defence set up.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 4, line 17, to leave out subsection (4) of Clause 5."—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'that,' in page 4, line 18 , stand part of the Bill."
  SIR JOHN WALTON: said he could not accept the Amendment. It very often happened that counsel put forward the defence with a view to getting the prisoner off.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. BOTTOMLEYsaid he had a slight Amendment to propose in Section 7 which said that anyone desirous of appealing to the Court of Criminal Appeal must do so within ten days of the conviction. The section went on to say that the Court of Criminal Appeal might extend the time for the application for leave to appeal, but there was this extraordinary limitation in the words "except in the case of a conviction involving sentence of death." That meant that if the day before the ten days was up the prisoner under sentence of death was in a position to produce important evidence if he was given

  679
  a few days time, the Court of Appeal could not extend the time for a week or ten days. It might be the case that there was a witness on the sea coming over to prove the man's innocence, but the proceedings could not be delayed. He therefore moved to leave out the words referred to.
  The Amendment was not seconded.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 5, line 39, after the word 'sentence' to insert the word 'only.' "—(Mr. Cave.)
  SIR JOHN WALTON: said he accepted the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. RAWLINSONmoved an Amendment which, he said, proposed to give power not only to the Court of Appeal, but also to the Court which tried the case, to give legal assistance to the appellant prisoner if they thought it right to do so. Assuming a man was convicted in a distant part or country he could not perhaps come up to the Court of Appeal to lay his case before them. Under the Bill they were the only tribunal which could grant legal aid and he now proposed to give power also to the court which tried the case if they thought there were facts about the case which warranted them in exercising it. That power would in such case be placed in the hands of the Chairman of Quarter Sessions or the Judge of Assizes if they thought fit to certify legal aid to the prisoner. Magistrates had power to grant legal aid to prisoners whom they were committing to quartet sessions or assizes and his Amendment was a most reasonable one.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 7, line 7, after the word 'appeal' to add the words, 'or the Court that has tried the criminal.'"—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the House had already decided that leave to appeal was to be given by the Court of Appeal and not by the Judge who had tried the case. The proper person to assign the counsel or solicitor to give legal aid was the person who gave the leave to appeal. Care would no doubt
  680
  be taken that the prisoner had proper legal assistance.
  MR RAWLINSONsaid that he did not desire to press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. RAWLINSONmoved an Amendment to Clause 11 (right of appellant to be present) to provide that the appellant should have the right to be present at the hearing of the application for leave to appeal as well as at the hearing of the appeal. The Amendment, he said, was one that he should be inclined to press on the Attorney-General. He thought the House would be of opinion that the Amendment should be accepted seeing that its object was to ensure that an appellant, who, notwithstanding that he was in custody, was entitled to be present on the hearing of his appeal, should be entitled also to be present at the application for leave to appeal. It had been decided that the only tribunal which could give a prisoner that leave on a question of fact was the Court of Appeal, and it seemed to be in accordance with all known traditions of justice that the prisoner should be allowed to attend before that Court, because if he was refused leave, his rights of appeal were entirely dead. Once the Court had been persuaded into giving leave to appeal, the probability was that they would have been almost won over on the side of the prisoner. As the Bill stood now the prisoner had no right to appear in Court himself, but he could be detained in custody at the place where he was in any part of the country. Surely he was entitled to be present, being a most important party to the proceedings.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill,
  "In page 7, line 14, after the word "of," to insert the words 'his application for leave to appeal and on the hearing of. '"—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he could not accept the Amendment. He thought that the prisoner should be present as a matter of course and of right on the hearing of his appeal, but when the question was whether the prisoner should get leave to appeal or not his presence should be allowed only

  681
  if it was necessary or desirable. He did not think that the prisoner should appear as a mere matter of course, because his attendance could only be secured at the cost of the Crown, and in many cases it would not be required.
  MR. BOWLESdid not agree with this barring out of a man from an action in a Court of Justice which might mean absolutely life or death to him. The application would be of enormous importance to the prisoner, almost of more importance than the trial. The man might have no counsel to represent him. He was not to be assigned a solicitor or counsel in the Court that had tried
  him. It was quite conceivable that the application for leave to appeal might be made before the Judges not only in the absence of the prisoner, but in the absence of anybody to represent him. He did not know what machinery was really contemplated; but it seemed to him, in view of the fact that this might be an overwhelmingly important matter to the unfortunate man, a very strange thing that the application was to be decided in his absence.
  Question put.
  The House divided: —Ayes, 30; Noes, 106. (Division List No. 343.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn Sir Alex. F.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone. W.)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Starkey, John R.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hervey. F. W.F.)BuryS. Edm'ds

  Staveley-Hill. Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Cave, George

  Hill, Sir Clement)Shrewsbury)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Younger, George

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington)

  MR. Salter and Mr. Bowles.

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Maddison, Frederick

  Allen. A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Marnham, F. J.

  Baring. Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Grayson, Albert Victor

  Massie, J.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone. N.

  Gulland, John W.

  Morrell, Philip

  Beauchamp, E.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William^

  Beaumont. Hon. Hubert.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Bennett. E . N.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Partington, Oswald

  Berridge. T. H. D.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)'

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pearson. W. H. M.(Suffolk, Eye)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Brunner. J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pollard, Dr.

  Burns, Rt Hon. John

  Hudson, Walter

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Causton. Rt. Hn. RichardKnight

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Clough, William

  Johnson, W . (Nuneaton)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpton

  Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W.

  Jones, Sir D Brynmor (Swansea)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cooper, G. J.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lambert, George

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lamont, Norman

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Crean, Eugene

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Dunn, A Edward (Camborne)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Dunne, Major E Martin(Walsall

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Elibank, Master of Evans, Samuel T,

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Everett, R Lacey

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Crae, George

  Thompson, J. W. H (Somerset, E.)

  Ferens, T. R.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Toulmin, George

  Walters, John Tudor '

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  COLONEL LOCKWOODmoved the adjournment of the debate. The Government surely did not intend to continue the debate on so important a subject with Committees beginning at eleven o'clock. He was perfectly indifferent on the matter himself, as he was not concerned in any of the Committees to which he referred; but he could not conceive it as consistent with the dignity of the House for furthering the object the Government had in view that they should go on any longer.
  Several Members rose to second, and Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Caldwell) put the Question, that further proceedings on consideration be adjourned, when
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid he hoped the Government would see their way
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I submit the Question has been put from the Chair. The Motion was put, and was seconded by no fewer than three people. One of them must have caught your eye. I submit the hon. Member would not be in order in addressing the House. In asking you to rule on this point, Sir, will you allow me to say that we who have been here all night desire that this Bill should go through?
  *MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Caldwell): Undoubtedly the Motion was seconded by several hon. Members, whereupon I put the Question from the Chair. If the noble Lord says he did not second it, then he can speak.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEYasked which of the three gentlemen the Deputy-Speaker had called upon to second.
  *MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Caldwell): If the hon. Gentleman says he did not second, he can speak.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEY: Who did second?
  *MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Several hon. Members rose at the same time and seconded.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEYhoped the Government would see their way
  684
  to accept the adjournment Motion. It was perfectly obvious that it was impossible for the House to conduct its business in that fashion. He did not know if hon. Members were aware that there were two most important Committees which met at eleven o'clock.
  MR. AINSWORTH: On a point of order, MR. Caldwell, I should like to ask you, Sir, has the Motion for adjournment been seconded?
  *MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Caldwell): The Motion has been seconded and put from the Chair.
  MR. AINSWORTH: If the Motion has been seconded who has seconded it?
  *MR. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Caldwell): The noble Lord is speaking to the Motion properly put from the Chair, and it is not in order to interrupt, and go back on the seconding.
  MR. AINSWORTH: Will you tell the House who has seconded?
  *MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: (Mr.Caldwell) It is not necessary at this stage to tell the House. It is.sufficient that the Motion has been duly seconded.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: If several people have seconded the Motion, are they all out of order if they desire to address you?
  *MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Caldwell): That Question is not in order just now.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid he was pointing out that there were two of the most important Committees to sit at eleven o'clock that day. It was perfectly preposterous for any Government to ask the Members of the House to sit almost continuously from one day to another. It was perfectly impossible for Members to do their work adequately on those Committees when the House sat till that hour of the morning. The Government had altered the whole system of procedure to facilitate business. These Committees were set up to bring about some sort of devolution. If the net result was that not only were they to

  685
  have the additional work entailed by the Committees but late sittings at that period of the session as well, the strain upon Members was one which it was most unfair of any Government to impose. It was all very well for the Government, and for Members on that side of the House, who were far greater in numbers, and who had been quite recently reinforced; it was far more easy for them to bear the strain of the sitting than it was for the members of the Opposition who were smaller in numbers and who had to take a more active part in the debate than members of the Government majority, whose sole duty was to register the opinions of the Member in charge of the Bill. Having regard to the state in which business had arrived he hoped the Government would accept the Motion.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: hoped the House would consent to finish the Bill. Very little remained to be done. If it had not been for the three Motions for

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt Hn Sir Alex. F.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Starkey,.John R.

  Bowles, G. Stewart,

  Hervey, F. W. F. (BuryS Edm'ds)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffsh.)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Castlereagh, Viscount-

  Hunt. Rowland

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cave, George

  Lane-Fox. G. R.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Younger, George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Pease, Herbert pike (Darlington)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Rawlinson. John Frederick Peel

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Colonel Lockwood and Viscount Helmsley.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Renton. Major Leslie

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Salter. Arthur Clavell

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Crean. Eugene

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Allen. A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Illingworth. Percy H.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Dunn. A. Edward (Camborne)

  Jones, Sir. D Brynmor (Swansea)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall)

  Jones. Leif (Appleby)

  Barry. Redmond. J (Tyrone, N.)

  Elibank. Master of

  Kilbride, Denis

  Beauchamp, E.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lambert, George

  Beaumont. Hon. Hubert

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lamont, Norman

  Bennett. E. N.

  Fenwick. Charles

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Berridge, T, H. D.

  Ferens. T. R.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Leese, Sir Joseph F(Accrington)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Gladstone. Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Brunner, J. P. L(Lanes, Leigh)

  Grayson, Albert Victor

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gulland, John W.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Causton. Rt. Hn Richard Knight

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Harmsworth. Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  M'Crae, George

  Clough, William

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  M'Kenna. Rt. Hon. Reginala

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Maddison, Frederick

  Cooper, G. J.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Corbett, CH(Sussex, E. Grinst'd)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Cotton. Sir H. J. S.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Massie, J.

  Craig, Herbert. J. (Tynemouth)

  Hudson, Walter

  Morrell, Philip

  the adjournment they would already have finished. His hon. friend had said he did not mind going on, but that he was thinking of his friends. He hoped the hon. Gentleman's friends would be prepared to go on.
  MR. JANE-FOXsaid the right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the three Motions for the adjournment. He wished to say that the three Motions were perfectly justified, because it was an absolute farce that they should be asked to discuss a Bill of that importance during the small hours of the morning. There had been absolutely no obstruction, and no member of the Treasury Bench could say there had been any sign of obstruction. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had no right to complain of the adjournment Motions.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 36 ; Noes, 102. (Division List No. 347.)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Toulmin, George

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Partington, Oswald

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  White, Luke (York. E. R.)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Richards, T. F (Wolverhampton)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Thompson, J. W H(Somerset, E.)

  *MR. CAVEmoved in Clause 13, to leave out "an" and to insert "a successful." He said his object in moving the Amendment was to ascertain how it was proposed that the expense of an unsuccessful appeal should be met. If they looked at Sub-section 2, which he was seeking to amend, they would find that all the expenses of the appellant should be defrayed in the same manner as the expenses of a prosecution in cases of felony. He was not sure he was right, but it appeared to him that the appellant whether he succeeded or not would draw on the county funds for his costs of the appeal. The fact was that whether he had an absolutely frivolous ease or not the appellant only had to apply for leave to appeal and he got the whole of his costs out of county funds. It seemed to him that that was a great encouragement to frivolous appeals. He thought that where there was a good case for the appeal the costs should come out of public funds, but where there was not a good ease they should not. As it was the Bill was an encouragement to every prisoner to try his luck on an appeal, for he could not lose anything, while he might get something by it.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 7, line 41, to leave out the word 'an,' and insert the words 'a successful'"— (Mr. Care)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'an' stand part of the Bill."
  SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he did not think he could allow it to be said that a convicted prisoner would have appealed, but was too poor to pay his expenses. They ought to give the right of appeal even in the poorest cases. Only a small sum would be necessary.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 8, line 19, to leave out the word 'or,' and insert the words 'and subject to any
  688
  directions which the Court of Criminal Appeal may give to the contrary on any appeal, the time during which the appellant."'
  "In page 8, line 25, after the word 'shall,' insert the words 'subject to any directions which may be given by the Court as aforesaid.' "—(The Attorney-General.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid the meaning of his next Amendment was easily explained. As the Bill stood at: the present time, if a man appealed directly he was in custody, from the moment his appeal started he was kept in custody, but in a different class from that in which he would be were he sent to hard labour or anything of that kind. The time he was kept waiting for his appeal, which must be a month or more, did not count as part of his sentence. The Amendment sought to alter that. It ensured that that period of time should count as part of the sentence, and that the court should allow it to be so taken. Remarks which he had made on a previous Amendment applied in a lesser degree to this one. The object of the Bill in its present form appeared to be to deter people from appealing. That was hardly fair. If a man did not succeed in his appeal the result might be that; he would be kept in prison another month, because, as he had said, no account was taken of the time which he spent in custody while waiting for his appeal to come. That was not a fair way of proceeding, and he therefore hoped that the House would agree to the; Amendment.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTTseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 8, lines 27 and 28, leave out the words 'the appeal is determined' and insert

  689
  the words 'the sentence is passed.'"—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  *SIR JOHN WALTONrather objected to one observation which had fallen from the hon. and learned Member on two or three occasions during the discussion. He had said that various provisions had been put in the Bill with the object of deterring persons from appealing. That was not the object of this provision. If a prisoner said he had been wrongly convicted, and desired to get leave to appeal, he had a right to have that question determined. If, therefore, he had been sentenced to a term of penal servitude, they could not put him under the regimen for the period of time while he was awaiting the appeal that he would be under if he was fulfilling his sentence in the ordinary way. He was not, as a matter of fact, at that time serving the sentence. The sentence had been arrested, and therefore he must be dealt with on a different principle. When the matter was in Committee he agreed to the insertion of the words which he had just moved, and which would give the Court power to say whether that period should count as part of the sentence or not. If the Court thought it right to make that period count, it would of course be a relief to the prisoner. He thought the words in question which were suggested when the Bill was in Committee upstairs, met the views generally of those Members who were present.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. CLAVELL SALTERmoved an Amendment to exempt from the work that may be done by a single Judge in Chambers the power of giving leave to appeal. His object in moving the Amendment, he said, was entirely to secure the general convenience of people concerned. Section 17, the House would see, gave the Court power to delegate to a Judge in Chambers, being one of their own body, certain matters. The powers which might be exercised related to a series of minor matters which it would be proper to deal with in Chambers. As the Court would be constituted by three Judges it would be a very great inconvenience
  690
  that one Judge should break up the work of the Court. Therefore, the Chamber work, which would be considerable under the Act, would have to be performed by one of the other eight King's Bench Judges who would be members of the Court. One of the Judges of the King's Bench Division was always sitting in Chambers. It would, therefore, be by far the most economical and convenient course that the Chamber work under the Act should be done by the ordinary Judge in Chambers of the King's Bench Division. It would be the best plan to choose for Chamber work in the King's Bench Division one of the eight Judges who were members of the Court sitting in Chambers, and who would be able to deal with matters which arose under the Act in the ordinary course of his duties. The system proposed under the Bill would be very wasteful and costly. It would really be a farce and a waste of time and money to try to get the Judge in Chambers to hear applications for leave to appeal, because in the great majority of cases he would refuse relief, and the man would have the right of taking the case to the Court of Appeal. He ventured to suggest to the learned Attorney-General that it would be much more convenient in every way to confine the Chamber work under the Bill to the smaller matters which that section prescribed.
  MR. BOULTONconsidered that the application for leave to appeal ought to be made in the first case to the full Court. That might save a great deal of time and also two applications. In every case where the application was refused by the single Judge, it would afterwards be made to the three Judges.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 10, line 18, to leave out the words 'to give leave to appeal.' "—(Mr. Salter.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  SIR JOHN WALTONfelt that there was a great deal of force in the argument which had been used, but he thought it was an argument that might be addressed to the Rule Committee of the Judges who would have to

  691
  settle the procedure for the administration of the Act. It would be an advantage to leave the Bill as it was, trusting to such modifications being made in smaller matters as the Judges in Chambers might resolve upon.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 11, line 6, after the word ' being,' to insert the words "the Registrar of the Court of Criminal Appeal."
  "In page 12, line 2, after the word ' inquisitions,' to insert the words 'and in cases where a person is dealt with by a court of quarter sessions as an incorrigible rogue under the Vagrancy Act, 1824.'"
  "In page 12, line 7, to leave out the word 'Appeals," and insert the words "Notwithstanding anything in any other Act, an appeal shall lie.'"
  "In page 12, line 7, to leave out the word 'convictions, 'and to insert the words 'a conviction.'"
  "In page 12, line 7, to leave out the word 'indictments,' and insert the word 'indictment.'"—(The Attorney-General.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  MR. RAWLINSONmoved in Clause 20, after the word "law," to insert the words "whether tried in the King's Bench Division or at the assizes or at the quarter sessions." As the section stood at the present moment he said it might lead to a considerable amount of litigation.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 12, line 8, after the word 'law,' to insert the words 'whether tried in the King's Bench Division, or at the assizes, or at quarter sessions.'"—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  SIR JOHN WALTONdid not think it was necessary to add the words.
  Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 12, line 9, to leave out from the word 'river,' to the word 'in,' in line 10, and to insert the words 'in whatever Court the indictment is tried.'"
  "In page 12, line 10, to leave out the word 'convictions,' and insert the word 'conviction.'"
  "In page 12, line 11, after the word 'action,' to insert the words ' tried at assizes.'"
  "In page 13, line 3, to leave out the word. twenty-fifth day of December,' and to insert the words 'eighteenth day of April.'"
  "In page 13, line 3, to leave out the word 'seven, and insert the word 'eight.' "—(The Attorney-General.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a third time."— (Mr. Attorney-General.)
  MR. PIKE PEASEasked the Government to reconsider their decision in regard to Third Reading. They had had a very interesting debate and an able discussion. In the circumstances ho hoped they would not be asked to pass the Third Reading.
  *MR. GLADSTONEasked the House to read the Bill a third time. There was a very full discussion on the Second Reading, a quite-satisfactory debate in Grand Committee, and they had now had eight or nine hours discussion on Report. There was nothing more to be said on the principle, and as they all knew the House of Lords was anxious to have Bills as soon as possible, in these circumstances he hoped the House would consent to read the Bill a third time.
  MR. FLAVINappealed to the Government not to ask the House to sit up another night, but to take the Third Reading now.
  MR AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he was in favour of the Bill, but protested it was rather a strong order to ask the Opposition to give the Third Reading there and then. A good many Members wanted to discuss the Bill on the Third Reading, and he could not press them to assent that night.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 102; Noes, 28. (Division List No. 348.)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E Grinst'd)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Richards, T. F.(Wolverhampton

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Crean, Eugene

  Lambert, George

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lamont, Norman

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Elibank. Master of

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Straus. B. S. (Mile End)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Ferens, T. R.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Taylor. John W. (Durham)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Crae, George

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Fuller. John Michael F.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Thompson, J. W H (Somerset, E.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Maddison. Frederick

  Toulmin, George

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Walters. John Tudor

  Grayson..Albert Victor

  Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston)

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Gulland, John W.

  Marnham. F. J.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Massie, J.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Morrell, Philip

  Whitley. John Henry (Halifax)

  Haworth. Arthur A.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Partington, Oswald

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Pease.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Hudson, Walter

  Pollard, Dr.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.

  Forster, Henry William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Barrie. H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Hervey.F. W. F (Bury S.Edm'ds

  Starkey. John R.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hunt, Rowland

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lane-Fox, G. R,

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cave, George

  Lockwood. Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  younger, George

  Cavendish. Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Corbett. A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Pease, Herbert Pike)Darlington

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—MR.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Courthope and Mr. Staveley-

  Dalrymple. Viscount

  Ridsdale. E. A.

  Hill.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bill read the third time and passed.

  IRISH COUNCIL BILL.
  Order for Second Reading road.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the order be discharged and the Bill withdrawn."—(Mr. George Whiteley.)
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid that on that Motion he had one or two questions to ask. In the first place, in the long list of measures which the Prime Minister told them last Friday were to be withdrawn, this particular Bill was not mentioned. His hon. friends and himself had been awaiting the Second Reading of it. It was mentioned in the foremost place at the commencement of the session. Why was it withdrawn? Was any pressure brought to bear upon the Government from any section of the House to withdraw the Bill, and was that Bill or any similar Bill to be introduced in some future
  694
  session? He asked some explanation from those Members of the Government whom he saw still sitting on the Treasury Bench.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid the right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that a few weeks or perhaps more ago, the Prime Minister announced that the Bill would be withdrawn. The Bill was being withdrawn because it was not being proceeded with. He had not heard that any pressure had been brought to bear on the Government in the matter. As regarded future years they might perhaps leave them to take care of themselves.
  MR. ARKWRIGHTasked on a point of order if the Motion could be accepted unless it was made by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill.
  MR SPEAKERsaid it could.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  EDUCATION (SPECIAL RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order be discharged, and the Bill withdrawn."
  COLONEL LOCKWOODasked the President of the Board of Education for an explanation why the Bill was to be withdrawn at half-past six in the morning. When the Bill was introduced the Minister for Education made great promises of what would be done by it, and something must have happened to change his opinions regarding it. Members had been elated at the prospect held before them. Perhaps as the Minister for Education was not present the Patronage Secretary would explain. He had no doubt he knew all about it.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid they had had a complaint because of the withdrawal of the Bill at half-past six in the morning. He thought the complaint would have been better founded if they had proposed to go on with the Bill. If he had not come to an agreement with the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues he would have proposed that they should go on with some other Bills.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn,
  NAVAL LANDS (VOLUNTEERS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  TELEGRAPH (CONSTRUCTION) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  LUNACY (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

  SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) [REMUNERATION].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the
  696
  payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the remuneration of any interim Sheriff Substitute appointed in pursuance of any Act of the present session to regulate and amend the laws and practice relating to the civil procedure in Sheriff Courts in Scotland."—(Mr. Whiteley.)
  MR. YOUNGERasked whether there was any provision in the Resolution for paying sheriffs' substitutes at an increased rate. The Government was placing a very much larger jurisdiction, and much greater work on them, and their present inadequate salary ought to be increased.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid that if the hon. Member would put a Question on the Paper he would see that it was answered.
  MR. YOUNGERsaid he would have been glad to have accepted that Answer, but for the fact that when the Financial Resolution of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill was before the House, he asked a similar Question, and was told by the Chairman of Committee that the proper time and place for his inquiry was the Grand Committee. On the Grand Committee the clause was closured without discussion, so he was putting a Question now.
  The Resolution was agreed to, and was reported to the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported this day.

  NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1905–6.
  Committee to consider the Surpluses and Deficits upon Navy and Army Grants for 1905–6, and the application of Surpluses to meet Expenditure not provided for in the grants for that year, this day—(Mr. Runciman.)
  Ordered, That the Appropriation Accounts for the Navy and Army Departments, which were presented respectively on the 18th and 20th February last, be referred to the Committee.—(Mr. Runciman.)
  Whereupon Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 26th day of this instant July, adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at twenty-two minutes before Seven o'clock.