Lords Sitting of 24 February 1896

GRIFFIN'S DIVORCE BILL.— [H.L.]
A Bill to dissolve the marriage of Richard Hollingsworth Griffin, formerly of 154, Rathmines Road, in the County of Dublin, but now of 67, Stephen Street, in the City of Dublin, mechanical engineer, with Annie Beatrice Griffin, his now wife, and to enable him to marry again; and for other purposes: Presented (on petition), and a copy of the proceedings in, and of the decree of divorce of, the Probate and Matrimonial Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, delivered (on oath); Bill read 1a. The usual orders made.

EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL.— [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order).
On Clause I.—

PERSON CHARGED WITH OFFENCE, AND WIFE OR HUSBAND, A COMPETENT WITNESS.
"1. Every person charged with an offence, and the wife or husband, as the case may be, of the person so charged, shall be a competent witness whether the person so charged is charged solely or jointly with any other person. Provided as follows:—

"(a.) A person so charged shall not he called as a witness in pursuance of this Act without his consent;

"(b.) The wife or husband of the person charged shall not, save as in this Act mentioned, be called as a witness in pursuance of this Act without the consent of the person so charged;

"(c.) A person charged and being a witness in pursuance of this Act shall not have the right to refuse to answer any question on the ground that it would tend to criminate him as to the offence charged;

"(d.) A person called as a witness in pursuance of this Act shall not be asked, and if asked shall not be required to answer, any question tending to show that any person charged has committed or been convicted of
898
any offence other than that wherewith he is then charged, or is of bad character, unless—

"(i) the proof that he has committed or been convicted of such other offence is admissible evidence to show that he is guilty of the offence wherewith he is then charged; or

"(ii) the person charged has asked questions of the witnesses for the prosecution with a view to establish his good character, or called witnesses to his good character, or otherwise has given evidence of good character."

LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWENsaid, the Bill proposed to make, what most people who had been concerned in the administration of the criminal law had long thought a very desirable improvement. But he had great doubt whether, when once a witness was admitted to give evidence on oath, it was possible, by the artificial restraints which this Bill sought to impose, to protect that witness from the ordinary tests as to credit. He did not, however, desire on this occasion to press to its full extent that view on their Lordships; but he wished to put one case which, he thought, unless the clause were amended, might lead to grievous injustice. The clause provided that a person charged with a criminal offence might be called as a witness, but was not, when called, to be required to answer any questions tending to show that he had committed any other crime than that for which he was then on his trial. He would put this case—he might put many others, but he thought this was a strong illustration. Two men were charged with the same offence, and tried at the same time, and one of them elected to go into the witness-box, as he might elect under this Bill if it became law. Not only did he give evidence to exculpate himself, but also to the effect that it was his co-defendant in the dock who had committed the offence. It seemed to him monstrous that that witness should be allowed to go before a jury as a witness of credit without any cross-examination. He would have preferred to meet the difficulty, and he thought it would be the better way to meet it, by leaving it to the discretion of the Judge to allow cross-examination where justice seemed to require it. He thought the discretion of the Court might be trusted to decide where it would be proper

899
to allow cross-examination and where not. His noble Friend on the Woolsack thought that would be too great a power with which to invest the Court, and, although he was not satisfied with the concession his noble and learned Friend had made, he must be content with what he could get. He therefore proposed to meet the difficulty by adding a further proviso to the effect that a person called as a witness in pursuance of the Bill should not be asked any question tending to show that any person charged had committed any offence other than that wherewith he was charged, "unless the person charged and called as a witness has given evidence against any other person charged with the same offence." He understood his noble and learned Friend was willing to accept that Amendment, and he accordingly moved it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBUBY)thought the Lord Chief Justice had very justly pointed out some difficulties which might arise, and which he thought the Amendment removed. He was, however, unable to concur in the views of his noble Friend as to the general proposition. In the first place, he believed that if it were allowable to cross-examine generally a prisoner who was called on his own behalf as to his previous career, no man would ever be found guilty on the facts and evidence, but on his own character. That, he thought, would be very unjust and most undesirable. He did not think the difficulty would be removed by investing the Judge at the trial with jurisdiction to determine whether that sort of question should be put or not. Great as his respect for Judges was, he would not leave that discretion to any learned Judge. The laws of evidence ought, in his opinion, to be fixed and certain, and not left to the discretion of any Judge. The policy of the law was to leave as little as possible to the discretion of the Judge when dealing with strict law. It was true enough that in the particular case he had given his noble and learned Friend had made out a case for some amendment, and to that extent he was willing to admit amendment. He thought it was not undesirable that a person who sought to
900
incriminate his fellow-prisoner should be open to the ordinary tests as to credit.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause I, as amended, agreed to; remaining clauses agreed to without amendment; Standing Committee negatived: The report of Amendment to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended.—[No. 12.]

WHEAT AND BREAD PRICES.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Papers respecting the prices of wheat and bread would be ready? He said that last summer, when he asked for Papers relating to the price of wheat and bread in France and elsewhere, the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, seemed to be under the impression that French farmers had suffered more than English farmers, and were no better off for Protection. With the leave of the House, he would read a letter, dated from the Carlton Club, which appeared in the St. James's Gazette on November 25th, 1895:—
"Your leading article 'That Curious Consumer' treats Lord Salisbury's speech as representing not any principles or arguments of his own, but as an acknowledgment 'that the forces of superstition and tradition are too strong to meddle with,' and that they are fatally opposed to any alteration of our fiscal system. As the speech has attracted widespread attention, from its obvious importance, will you allow me to point out that Lord Salisbury did have recourse to a favourite argument of his own against Protection 'on its merits.' His words run:—'If you cross the water you find that the French have tried the experiment of Protection in an extreme form, and there agriculture is suffering as greatly as in England, if not more so.' A letter of mine from Bordeaux, which appeared in your columns last spring, was made the subject of a question and a discussion in the House of Lords. Lord Salisbury on that occasion again took refuge in generalities, as he does now. But can he question the proved fact that France was actually extending her wheat-growing area while we were driven to reduce ours? Can he deny that the price of wheat was 40 or 50 per cent. higher in France than here last spring, while bread cost hardly more? And can he point to districts in France 'going back to prairie,' in your words, 'as the fields in Essex are going'? He is bound to do this if he persists in his argument.—I am, &c., J. H. R."

901
He had obtained the last volume of Agricultural Statistics for 1894 from the office of the French Minister for Agriculture, containing 21 sets of tables. These figures fully bore out the assertions of the writer from the Carlton Club, that French farmers got more for their wheat and that bread was hardly higher than in this country. The other statement, that the area cultivated with wheat had increased in France was not true to the same extent. Wheat cultivation had increased owing to the decreased market for colza oil, and some bad years, in which the frost had killed the young corn, had made an apparent increase in the succeeding year. In 1894 the average price per hectolitre was for the whole of France 15 francs 21 centimes, or about 36s. a quarter; but in the Departments in the lower part of the Rhone valley, and along the Mediterranean from the Pyrenees to the Alps, the price was more than 19 francs per hectolitre, or 46s. a quarter. In these Departments the yield was less, but the weight of the grain per hectolitre was much higher, reaching to 80 kilogrammes, as against 76 to 78 kilogrammes in other parts of France. In England the weight of a bushel varied from 60 to 80 lbs. According to the Mark Lane Express Almanac 30 bushels to the acre appeared to be the maximum average yield in England. In Cheshire 22 bushels and in Anglesey from 25 to 28 bushels were the average, while in Norfolk it was 32. In France in 1894 the average yield of wheat for the whole country was 16·71 hectolitres per hectare, equivalent to about 18 bushels per acre; but owing to improved cultivation and the use of artificial manures, especially nitrate of soda, in some Departments of France, the average yield for the Department in 1894 reached our maximum, and in several exceeded our average produce. 1882 is described as an exceptionally favourable year for wheat, yet the improvement of cultivation shows an increase in the yield per hectare in several
902
Departments in 1894. The French statistics supplied the following figures:—

1892

1894

Hectolitres

Hectolitres

Seine

28·51

28·93

Seine et Marne

26·00

25·27

Seine et Oise

25·95

30·00

Eure et Loir

25·60

25·76

Nord

24·45

28·00

Oise

23·49

29·00

Loiret

22·91

22·60

Somme

22·60

22·21

Loir et Cher

22·43

19·00

Yonne

21·70

19·00

Allier

21·55

23·00

Puy de Dome

17·65

23·00

30 hectolitres per hectare in Seine et Oise were about equal to 33 bushels per acre. But French farmers had not only improved the yield of wheat per acre; the price had been higher than in this country. A table of prices of various cereals for the whole of France for 20 years from 1875 to 1894 gave an average price of 19 fr. 53c. per hectolitre, equivalent to about 46s. a quarter. The highest prices were obtained in the years 1877, 1878, 1880 and 1881. Although the price of wheat was so much higher than it was in this country the price of bread was not higher, for in 1894 the average price of the kilogramme throughout France was 31 cents., 26 cents. and 23 cents. for first, second and third qualities of bread or from 6d. to 5d. the 41b. loaf. In Paris bread was cheaper than it used to be. This he was told was owing to greater liberty having been conceded to the bakers, and the substitution of an officious for an official price laid down by the Administration. The volume of official statistics contained tables of the officious price of bread in Paris for every week with the price of wheat, and the price at which bread was sold in some 3,000 bread shops in Paris. Of these about 2,000 were bakers' shops and 1,000 were depôts or places where bread was sold but not made. These returns gave the number of shops where bread was sold above and the number of those where it was sold below the Government price. On the whole the depôts were cheaper than the shops.

903
During 1894, the officious tax or price recommended by the Government in Paris varied from 62c. to 68c., and the selling price varied from 80c. to 50c. the 2 kilos, or from 8d. to 5d. the quartern loaf. This price was less than that given in the Parliamentary Papers of 1888, and in several weeks taken at hazard, bread was sold below the officious price in a fourth or a fifth of the Paris shops. In his speech at Hastings, Lord Salisbury spoke of the consumer as "coextensive with the whole people of this country," and appeared to forget that the great bulk of the consumers were producers as well, and that to have, or not to have 18s. or 20s. a week as a producer was more important than possibly to have to pay 3½d. a week extra for bread. All people were occupiers, but those who were owners and occupiers thought more of their ownership than of their quality of occupier and it should be the same in the case of producers and consumers. There were very few consumers who were not producers also; they were limited to the sons of rich people exercising no profession and to the inmates of the workhouse, and those had no votes.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Viscount CROSS): I hope the noble Lord will allow me to answer the official part of the question. A statement has been furnished by the Board of Agriculture, and they say that the representations from Her Majesty's representatives abroad have been received and are now under consideration by the Board. These statements will require a good deal of arrangement to make them intelligible, and it may be necessary to obtain further explanations on certain points. It is hoped, however, that the papers will be ready for presentation to Parliament at an early date.
THE PRIME MINISTER (the Marquess of SALISBURY): I suppose I ought to say a few words in answer to the citations in which the noble Lord so liberally indulged from speeches of my own. But I think I shall accept the permission which he gave me to say very little. When at the end of last year I pointed to the case of France as one that caused considerable doubt as to the immediate effect of tariff upon prices, I was speaking of what I had myself heard, not on the Riviera, where, I am
904
afraid, you will not get much information as to the growth of corn, but in Normandy. I have always understood that the fall in the value of land as it concerns both the French owner and occupier, is very much what you would say the fall in this country has been—namely, rather more than one-third; so that I do not think an extensive use of protection has really saved the owners and occupiers in France. But I am not inclined to follow the noble Lord into a disquisition on the politico-economic question which he has raised. The question of the bearing of tariffs upon prices is a matter of extreme complexity, and I should be very sorry to undertake it at a moment's notice in answer to the figures of the noble Lord, and I do not think any advantage would result from my doing so. But I do wish to emphasise what the noble Lord referred to, that neither at Hastings nor anywhere else have I said a word which could be honestly interpreted as meaning the advocacy of Protection. I do not believe that the protection of articles of first necessity is a measure that can, during any period which it is material for us to consider be adopted in this country, because it probably would be hostile to the interests of the consumers, and it certainly would be thought to be so. The consumers being entirely the masters in the determination of such a case would always be afraid that their interests were being sacrificed to the interests of the owners of land. As to the deeper economical questions, what advantage there is in Protection; why, we are the only nation that has pursued Free Trade; what the precise results of the Protective System would have been upon our country—those are questions which for our purposes are practically academical, and I shall certainly not attempt to follow the noble Lord in discussing them. The elements for any such consideration are hard to obtain, and no one can have watched what has taken place within the last 50 years without feeling that discussion has very little to do with the decision which nations come to upon this question. They are guided, each one, by the belief that this course or that will be favourable to their own interests. The more profound intricacies of economical problems are highly interesting from a literary or

905
scientific point of view, but I do not think that an investigation of them has much influence upon the course of nations. I therefore will merely repeat that it seems to me that the case of France does throw considerable doubt upon the probability of Protection being a real relief to the owners and occupiers of land, and I conclude by reiterating my assertion that nothing that I have said can be fairly construed as an argument in favour of Protection.
House adjourned at Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.