Lords Sitting of 25 March 1895

CHITRAL.
LORD KNUTSFORD: I desire to ask whether the Government can give the House any further information about Chitral?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord REAY): Beyond the information given to the House on the 21st instant, in reply to Lord Cross's question, and a report identical with that which appeared in the newspapers about the melancholy loss of Captain Ross and his party near Boni, the Secretary of State has no information. It is believed that the British Agent with 300 men is still invested in the Chitral Fort, and the Government of India have reported that the Chitral relief force will be despatched as soon as it can be made ready—by April 1, if possible. So far as the Secretary of State is aware, the Govern-
2
ment of India have not recognised anyone as the new Mehtar of Chitral. It is not known for certain where Umra Khan is, but he is supposed to be still in Chitral territory. Some of his men are reported by Lieutenant Jones to be holding the Fort of Drassan, to the north of Chitral. No information has been received from Dr. Robertson direct of later date than March 1.

GRAND JURIES (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
The House went into Committee on this Bill, and after certain Drafting Amendments to Clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, and 9, proposed by Lord Morris, had been agreed to, the Bill passed through Committee, and was reported.

EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL.
LORD HALSBURY, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, that if his only object was to get the Second Reading of the Measure, it would probably be sufficient to mention to their Lordships that it had four or five times previously passed the Second Reading stage, and had three times actually passed through the House. But he

3
really thought the time was come when people should understand what absurd anomalies existed in the law as it at present stood. If their Lordships glanced at the Schedule of the Acts that it was intended to repeal by the Bill, it would be seen that in those different Acts there was a provision which enabled accused persons to give evidence on their own behalf; and matters had now come to this, that it required an education—a special education—on the part of those who presided at criminal trials to know whether or not the persons accused before them were capable of giving evidence or not. He might illustrate what he said by referring to an incident that took place before the Recorder of London. Two persons were indicted for an offence, and each of them desired to call his wife to give evidence in his behalf. They were informed that if the women were their wives, they could not be called, whereupon one of the men said that he was not married to the woman he wished to call, though they had long lived together. On this, the man was judicially informed that this woman could be called to give evidence, and she was called and made a credible witness; but in the other case, as the accused was married, the woman could not be called. That would give some idea of the present state of the law in this respect. Since one of the Bills which he had brought forward had passed their Lordships' House, a very remarkable case had been tried before the Lord Chief Justice. It was a case in which an old man, 80 years of age, named Barber, had been connected in some way with a prospectus issued in reference to the ship Great Eastern. He was charged by means of the prospectus with obtaining money by false pretences; but, probably in consideration of his age, he was sentenced to only a comparatively light punishment—four or five months' imprisonment. But the case arose again, subsequently, in civil proceedings, and the same point on which he was convicted, whether the allegation in the prospectus was a falsehood, once more came up. In this civil proceeding the man was capable of being called as a witness, and, to the satisfaction of everyone, including the learned Judge who tried the cause, he was acquitted by the jury of
4
having obtained money by false pretences, and for the best of reasons—that that which was alleged to be a false pretence was, in fact, true. On that occasion the Lord Chief Justice took the opportunity of pointing out the hardship, the gross injustice, that this old gentleman suffered through the law having prevented him from being called as a witness in the original trial. Whatever was the principle which guided the law originally, he would ask whether it was reasonably possible to maintain the system under which every person indicted under the Acts mentioned in the Schedule to the Bill could be called as a witness, whereas every person who was excluded from them could not. But the question did not quite rest even on that. He had mentioned before, that in this country, unlike many other countries, everybody was entitled to assume to himself the character of the prosecutor, and, assuming that character, unless the Attorney General intervened, he practically framed the charge which should be made against a person. A learned Judge had told him that in his view it was quite possible in such circumstances for a person to take the opportunity of so framing the charge, by varying its legal quality, as to make it incapable for a person proceeded against to be called as a witness. What sense or reason could there be in such a system as that? The present state of the law had been denounced by nearly every person conversant with its administration. The present Bill was almost identical with the others that had preceded it except in one particular—that Ireland was not included in it. For his own part he believed this was a defect in the Bill, but it was a defect in which he willingly acquiesced, because he hoped it would prevent the obstruction which the preceding Bills had met with in the other House. Rightly or wrongly, hon. Members from Ireland had protested against the Bill being passed, and, in deference to their objection, it had been suggested that Ireland should be left out of the measure. Accordingly, he hoped there would be no obstruction to the present Bill, seeing that there was an almost universal desire in this country that every person should have the power to give evidence if he wished to do so. It

5
must not be supposed the Acts to which he had referred were trivial in their character. Some of the Acts which permitted certain persons to be called as witnesses were Acts under which a prisoner might be sentenced to penal servitude for life; but if a person was indicted for murder he could not be called as a witness. A circumstance bearing on this occurred in a case which was tried not long since, and it might a little shock the public conscience—a case in which it was stated that a prisoner about to be sentenced to death for murder declared that he could have proved where he was at the time of the murder if the law had permitted him to be called to give evidence. Without, however, relying on such an incident, the mere fact that a prisoner was now able to say that the law prevented him from proving his innocence, by reason that he was not allowed to give evidence in his own behalf, could not be ignored. He had only one further observation to make. His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had a similar Bill before the House last year, and he would gladly leave the further conduct of the present Bill to him if he would undertake it. The reason why he had thought it right to move the Second Reading was, that on the 23rd of July last his noble and learned Friend moved that his Bill should be postponed. He moved, on the contrary, that it should be read a second time, and it was so read, with the acquiescence of the noble and learned Lord. He was not in the least suggesting that the Lord Chancellor was not quite as anxious as he himself was that this Bill should pass; for he believed the views of the noble and learned Lord on the question were identical with his own, but he had thought that, under the circumstances, it would be better for him to move the Second Reading on this occasion. There was a strong feeling that the Bill should be no longer postponed, and he begged to move that it be read a second time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, he did not propose to argue in support of the Bill. He entirely concurred with what had been said by his noble and learned Friend, and on many previous occasions he had given his reasons for thinking why such a Bill should be passed into law. Personally,
6
he entertained the strongest opinion with regard to it, and nobody could be more anxious than he was to see it become an Act of Parliament. On two previous occasions he had introduced a Bill of this description. During the time his noble Friend was on the Woolsack he, on more than one occasion, introduced such a Bill, and he had himself done so. Having introduced a Bill to carry out that purpose during the present Session, he should, of course, exercise all the influence he possessed to ensure the Bill being passed into law. He was quite satisfied that there was no indisposition whatever on the part of his colleagues to see this Bill become law. There were still some who retained what, in his opinion, were prejudices against the change; but he believed those feelings would disappear as soon as the law came into operation. The possible mischief would, in his judgment, be infinitesimal. He thought, however, there would be an advantage in the Bill being a Government Bill, and that his own Bill would, therefore, have more chance of being passed when it went down to the other House than that of his noble and learned Friend.
*LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he entirely agreed with his two noble Friends in their desire to see a change in the law as suggested by these Bills. But as one interested in the administration of the law in Ireland, he was obliged to express regret at Ireland being excluded from them. Every single argument which had been applied increased, if possible, the case in Ireland's behalf; and, he ventured to think, that there was not a single Judge or any other person interested in the administration of the law in Ireland who would not deplore the omission. Still, he felt the force of what the noble Lord behind him had said, namely, that he had only omitted Ireland from the provisions of the Bill because he felt that was the most expedient way of getting it through the House of Commons. There was a large number of Members from Ireland who deemed it right to oppose this change in the law, so far as their country was concerned, so that by the omission it was sought to conciliate their objections and induce them to remain quiescent during the various stages of the Bill. But there were, it must be remembered, also many

7
Irish Members in the House of Commons representing different opinions in Ireland who would very much feel the omission, and it was not difficult to tell how they would view the matter. There were many earnest advocates of this change; and whilst he should gladly welcome any such change in the law in any portion of the Queen's dominions, he could but deeply regret that it had not been made applicable to Ireland.
*LORD MORRISwished to offer his testimony in favour of the Bill. Having had a long experience, however, of the administration of justice as a Judge, and seeing the necessity for such a change in the law as was proposed, he felt rather strongly the omission of Ireland from the Bill, and deplored even more than that omission the reason that had been assigned for it. It was not a reason founded upon any argument—not a reason at all—but a statement that because certain Irish Members in the House of Commons might oppose the Bill, therefore, beforehand, their obstruction was to be acceded to by leaving Ireland out of the Bill altogether. He had often heard objections made as to exceptional legislation for Ireland when the so-called Coercion Act was passed. It was, in fact, a stock argument; but what were they doing now? They were taking an exceptional course by omitting to legislate for Ireland, and by leaving the present law, which was admittedly bad, in exactly the same state while the remedy was being applied to this country. He had heard, on the other hand, that now-a-days legislation should be granted both to Ireland and to England on precisely the same lines—an argument which was always used when there was any question of the extension of the Franchise, and one which was largely used when the Municipal Franchise Bill was before the House of Commons a few days since. In this matter they were simply yielding to a force which ought not to be yielded to; if such a course as was being pursued on this occasion were allowed to continue, it would have the effect of encouraging persons to object to almost everything. He should certainly move in the Standing Committee, if that stage was reached, to leave out the clause exempting Ireland from the operation of the Bill, and if not successful on that
8
occasion he should oppose the Third Reading.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, there was nothing more magnificent than the resolution of his noble Friend that he would never yield to the House of Commons in this matter; the Members of the House of Commons were equally determined never to yield to them, and the result of that was, that for ten years these atrocious anomalies had gone on in spite of all the efforts of that House to prevent them. He thought they might begin with a somewhat lower standard of virtue in view of the practical circumstances of the case. He had an eirenical suggestion to make; they were the happy possessors of a Bill which owned two parents, and he suggested that while the Government Bill which was intended to pass should only apply to England, his noble Friend's Bill should apply to both England and Ireland, and should go down in order to satisfy the feelings of the Irish on both sides of the House, and give them an opportunity of expressing those virtuous opinions which had been referred to.
Bill read 2a.

EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES (No. 2) BILL.
Read 2a. (The Lord Chancellor.)
CONVENTION OF ROYAL BURGHS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1879, AMENDMENT BILL.
Report of Amendments agreed to.

RICHMOND LUNATIC ASYLUM.
THE EARL OF ERNEasked Her Majesty's Government—(1) Whether an authoritative Report has ever been given in favour of the health and suitableness of the Richmond Lunatic Asylum, Dublin; (2) whether the two Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums in Ireland have advised that it can be continued with advantage to the health of the inmates; (3) whether the Medical Superintendent of the Asylum has drawn constant attention to the unfitness of the present site for the purposes of an Asylum; (4) whether all Lunatic Asylums are now built out of towns; and whether the the Richmond Asylum is situated in a poor part of Dublin and surrounded by

9
many old tenement houses; (5) whether the Board of Control lately insisted upon the abandonment of the Derry Asylum because it was situated on the outskirts of the town?
*LORD RIBBLESDALE: The Chief Public Health Officer in Dublin recently reported favourably on the healthiness of the site of the Richmond Asylum. He found that some limited portions of the soil had been contaminated by sewage in the vicinity of old drains, but that, he considered, could be remedied. The Inspectors of lunatics have advised that, with certain alterations which are now about to be made, the Richmond Asylum can be continued with advantage as an institution for the care and treatment of the insane poor of the city of Dublin. The resident Medical Superintendent has stated that, in his opinion, the site is not a suitable one for an Asylum. Much has, however, been done to improve it by the execution of a complete system of drainage, and the purchase of some additional land, and alterations and additions are now in contemplation for the improvement of the buildings. Lunatic Asylums are not now built in towns, but many such institutions still exist in very populous neighbourhoods. The Richmond Asylum is situated on elevated ground on the north side of Dublin, and on one side only is in close proximity to tenement houses. The Board of Control lately advised the abandonment of the existing Londonderry Asylum and the purchase of a new site outside the city, because the land attached to the existing Asylum was wholly insufficient, and was overlooked on every side by occupied buildings—a condition of things in no way similar to the surroundings of the site of the Richmond Asylum.
*LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that, as far as he could gather from the statement of the noble Lord representing the Irish Government, two Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums in Ireland had reported in favour of this, and he trusted that that document would be laid on the Table, because it would be read by people in Ireland with considerable interest and curiosity. This Asylum, which was the largest Lunatic Asylum in Ireland, had been the subject of a great variety of misfortunes during recent years, with outbreaks of sickness
10
and a series of calamities which had attracted much public attention, and every one knew that it was entirely out of keeping with all the requirements of modern lunacy establishments, which should be built in country districts, thus giving the patients opportunities of enjoying the open air, and some occupation, such as gardening, to assist in the recovery of their minds. The noble Lord stated on a former occasion that it was contemplated building a large Asylum at Port Rane for the accommodation of a large number of lunatics, about, he thought, 1,000, which were at present confined in the Richmond Asylum, where, at the present moment, there were 400 in excess of the legitimate number that institution should accommodate. When it was suggested that to make the Richmond Asylum even tolerable for the small number that might remain in it after the erection of the Port Rane Asylum, would involve a cost of at least £65,000, the question was raised whether it would not be better to add that to the large moneys which might possibly be gained by the sale of the site on which the Asylum stood, and, saving the expense of buying the additional land to which the noble Lord had referred, make a new departure. Of course he could not expect the noble Lord to be prepared to discuss all the local details, with which Irishmen possessing a knowledge of the locality alone could deal, but he wished to know whether the Government would have any objection to furnishing the House with copies of the Report to which he had referred.
*LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid, the noble Lord's suggestion was a practical one. If things were as bad as suggested (as he agreed they appeared to be), it might be better to use the £60,000 which was going to be spent at Richmond towards enlarging Port Rane, and accommodating the lunatics of the district. That had occurred to the Irish Officer, and they telegraphed to know what it would cost to make Port Rane large enough to accommodate the lunatics at Richmond. In his previous answer he explained what was being done there. Port Rane would only accommodate half the lunatics of the district, and accommodation for more than 400 would, therefore, be necessary. If Port Rane were enlarged

11
sufficiently for the requirements of the district they would have to accommodate nearly 2,000, and he believed the works to accommodate 1,000 in contemplation there were estimated to cost £200,000. Against that they had to set the value of the land. They were always told that the value of land in Ireland was questionable. He was not able to say what the value would be, but against the sum mentioned they had to put the value of the site upon which Richmond stood, and no doubt the saving of £60,000 which was going to be spent at Richmond. But this was not a question for the Government. It appeared to be a question for the ratepayers of the district, and he could give no indication of what the views of the Government would be. Although he knew that there was no suggestion that the Government were in anyway responsible for the state of the lunatic asylum at Richmond, he also knew that people who did not exactly know how the land lay in such matters, were apt to think that the Government were responsible for everything. The people primarily responsible for the Richmond Asylum were the governors of the asylums. As far as he knew they had never recommended the abandonment of the Asylum to the proper authorities. The noble Lord knew better than he did who the proper authorities were. The proper authorities in a case of this sort—which involved the acquisition of land and erection of buildings—were the Board of Control. Therefore, although the Government would be most anxious to see better and more economical arrangements made for the accommodation of lunatics, he objected altogether to this being treated in anyway as a matter for which the Government were responsible.
LORD ASHBOURNEreminded the noble Lord that he had not said whether he would be in a position—he would not say to lay on the Table, but to permit inspection of the anticipated Reports of the two inspectors. He felt the force of what the noble Lord had said. The governors were men of the highest position, only anxious to do what was right.
*LORD RIBBLESDALEreplied that he would certainly ask whether the Report would be accessible.

LAND CLAUSES (TAXATION OF COSTS) BILL.
On the Motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, this Bill was read a Third Time and passed.

THE MEANING OF ALTERATIONS IN THE LAW.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved—
"That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee to insert as a schedule in every Bill which refers to any sections of an Act of Parliament for the purpose of amending or repealing them, a reprint of such sections in all cases in which it can be done without an excessive increase in the bulk of the Bill in question."
He said the Motion was intended to correct what was a great evil in our legislation. He was not at all bigoted as to the remedy, if any other than that proposed could be found. But a remedy was required. The practice had grown more and more of referring in a Bill, to other Acts of Parliament by way of modification and amendment, and not mentioning what the effect of that reference might be. The result was, that for a man to sit down to find out what a Bill meant simply from the Bill itself was to undertake a task as hopeless as interpreting an arrow-headed inscription. There was absolutely nothing in the Bill to tell the meaning of the clause in which the reference was made. He had no doubt this was a convenient plan for passing Bills through the House of Commons. The very obscurity which made a Bill perfectly useless to the subject, when passed, made it impenetrable to a Member of the House of Commons when it was passing. He voted for it without thinking, and many Debates and much valuable time were wasted. He understood this policy, but, as it was worked at the present time, it had serious disadvantages. At the present time with the tendency which the State showed to interpose in all the functions and departments of civil life, the more and more Bills had to be dealt with and interpreted by unlearned persons, instead of being reserved for learned persons. Only, for instance, last year, the House passed, after great elaboration and discussion, a Bill for the creation of Parish Councils. These Councils were being administered almost entirely over the vast area of the country by persons

13
entirely unlearned in the matter of Acts of Parliament. It was impossible to understand the meaning of the provisions in a Bill which created Parish Councils without having the 16 volumes of the Statutes at Large at one's elbow. How many people who had to carry that Act into effect in the various parishes had those 16 volumes at their elbow? But this did not end the difficulty. He did not think the Statutes at Large could be bought in small bits. You had to buy the whole series. People whose parishes did not exceed 300 inhabitants might avoid the expense. But in every parish of more than 300 inhabitants a 1d. rate must be levied to purchase the Statutes at Large, so that the Parish Councils Bill might be rudimentarily understood. The noble Lord on the Woolsack was engaged in reforming the local benches of magistrates. He was introducing to them a large number of excellent persons—working men—who were what were called self-made men. Well, the process of self-manufacture did not involve a knowledge of the Statutes at Large, and these unfortunate working men when they administered justice in Petty Sessions would have to find their way through these Statutes as best they could without the possibility of referring to the documents which alone would give them any indication of the meaning of an enactment. He admitted that though the evil was great the remedy was somewhat hard. His own proposal was a simple one—that wherever a section was referred to, for the purpose of modifying it in any way it should be printed in the Schedule. A solitary evil would certainly be increased—not a small one—in the printer's bill, and there would be a certain increase in the bulk of the Statutes at Large. But he did not think that that evil—whatever it might be—in any degree approached the evil of sending out laws to be acted upon by unlearned persons without the very elements of the information by which those laws were to be interpreted. In consequence of the steady trend of modern Legislation this evil was growing year by year, and he earnestly hoped the House would apply some remedy to it. If any other remedy could be devised besides what he had suggested he would be glad to co-operate in it. But the time
14
had come to take some step in that direction.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he entirely sympathised with the object of the noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury). But two matters must be kept distinct in dealing with this question—the want of information by Parliament whilst a Bill was being passed; the other the supply of information to the public after a Bill had passed. As regarded the passage of a Bill through the two Houses all that the noble Marquess desired would be met by a memorandum which should embody the noble Marquess's proposal, that the sections should be set out and the changes made in the law pointed out. This was a note which might be carried out without any serious objection. But the other was a question of greater difficulty. When an Act was passed into law no doubt it was inconvenient that it should be only possible to deal with it and explain it by reference to another Statute. But he thought there was a distinct convenience in having a Bill passed in such a form as to show distinctly the change that was being made. If they were always, when they proposed to alter a section in an Act already law, to re-enact that section with the alterations, he thought the change being made would not so pointedly be called attention to, and those who had been in the habit of dealing with the Act in the past would not so readily perceive what alteration the Legislature had made. Therefore, there was a real advantage when they amended an Act, or section of an Act, in doing it so far by reference as distinctly to point out in the new Act passed the change that was being made. But then, no doubt, that left them in this position—as the noble Marquess had said—that they had to study a variety of other Statutes. He thought that the statement that 16 volumes of Statutes were necessary to explain the Parish Councils Act was the result, to some extent, of a vivid imagination.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But I have counted them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The revised version embracing the whole of the Statutes would not run into 16 volumes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was speaking of the older Statues.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The revised version embracing all the Statutes would not contain 16 volumes. A limited number only of that edition would need to be procured to understand the Parish Councils Bill. So the expenditure would not be so considerable.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But they are much dearer.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, with reference to the difficulty of understanding legislation by reference he quite agreed that it existed. But he did not himself think the necessity for the change had been rendered greater by any change in the composition of the magisterial bench. He did not think the magistrates of the past had been acquainted with the whole of the Statute Book and able to apply changes without reference and study. Nor was he prepared to admit that they had been more competent in all cases to determine the meaning of a change in legislation than those who had been put on the bench in recent times. But quite apart from that he admitted that it was extemely desirable in some way or other to make a change. He should have thought that probably an improvement might be made by an automatic process of consolidation so that they might always, when a change was made in the law, have the Statute printed up to date with the alterations. But he did not propose to go into any suggestions. What he would invite the House to consider was whether the best mode of improvement would not be to refer the matter (the importance of which he fully appreciated) to a Joint Committee of both Houses. It was important whatever course they determined upon should be agreed to by the other House. In such a matter as this, which simply related to the form of legislation, the two Houses should act on a common agreement. Such an agreement might be arrived at by the appointment of a small Joint Committee of the two Houses—and a Committee existed already with reference to the Consolidation of Bills—and probably a conclusion would be arrived at which would carry out the object the noble Marquess had in view in the best manner after full consideration.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he had no objection to take to the proposal of the noble and learned Lord,
16
except that he very much preferred to have a Special Committee for this purpose. If it was merely to be put as a by-matter, to be considered by a Committee which had other and heavier duties to discharge, he felt certain that it would be smothered. The suggestion he made was one which did not enjoy the benevolent appreciation of draftsmen, and he did not feel it would have justice done to it unless a Committee was appointed for the purpose of dealing with it specially and definitely. If the noble and learned Lord would undertake to move for a Joint Committee of the two Houses, he would not press the Motion on the present occasion. In fact, he thought a Committee would be the best form of dealing with the matter; but he rather doubted the possibility of the remedy which the noble and learned Lord suggested—namely, that there should be automatic consolidation at each step. Consolidation was a very different matter from simply referring in an Appendix for the purpose of information to an old Statute. Consolidation involved the weighing again, for legislative purposes, of the words which you use, and often it was really hardly less difficult than a new enactment. If we were to resort to consolidation in the case of every small Bill that was passed, he feared that the burden would be too heavy for those on whom it would fall. This, however, was a matter for a Committee to decide.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had not the slightest objection to the matter being referred to a Special Committee.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he should like to point out to the noble Marquess, with whose object he sympathised, that if his Instruction or Resolution merely referred to clauses which were amended or repealed, he would not do much to diminish the number of volumes that would have to be referred to. Must he not go further and refer also to clauses from other Acts that were embodied in the Bill? This was a point which really involved the vast number of volumes of which the noble Marquess spoke.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he would ask leave to withdraw the Motion, and would request the noble and

17
learned Lord to undertake to move for the appointment of a Committee.
Motion, by leave, withdawn.
The House adjourned at Twenty-five minutes after Five o'clock.