DRUNKENNESS (IRELAND) BILL. (Hansard, 17 July 1905)

§ LORD LUDLOW
moved to omit the words, "and, save when a defendant, a compellable." He pointed out that Clause 13 made husband and wife not only competent, but compellable witnesses in the cases dealt with by the Bill, but he hardly knew what exactly was meant by the words he proposed to omit.

THE EARL OF MAYO
said the promoters of the Bill thought that unless the wife was compelled to attend as a witness it would be impossible to get evidence that the husband had done away with the goods and chattels in the house. There was no doubt a feeling against the proposal, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had expressed the opinion that it might break up the home.

§ LORD LUDLOW
said the noble Earl had not explained the words "save when a defendant."

THE EARL OP MAYO
said that, to speak frankly, he did not know what the words, "save when a defendant" meant, but he knew that the meaning of the clause was that the promoters wished the wife to be compelled to give evidence against her husband, and he was aware that there was an objection to that. As to the words referred to, the noble Lord, being a lawyer, probably understood their meaning much better than he did.

§ LORD LUDLOW
said that, although a lawyer, he did not know what was meant by the words "save where a defendant"; they were absolutely unintelligible to his mind. As regarded the clause generally, he objected to make husband and wife compellable witnesses, especially for some of the offences under the Bill. Undoubtedly if the wife were called, a conviction might be secured if she spoke the truth, but it was not a pleasant position for the wife to be placed in. On the other hand, if she did not speak the truth, she might be indicted for perjury and sent to prison. That also was very undesirable in connection with such cases. There were very few offences under English law in connection with which husband and wife were compellable witnesses. In the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898, it was particularly stated that although husband and wife were competent witnesses, the Judge could not compel them to give evidence of any communication which had taken place between them. Again, only last year, in the Cruelty to Children Act, husband and wife were made competent, but not compellable, witnesses. In cases under 847 that Act it might be most important that the wife should be compelled to give evidence, but the Lord Chief Justice, who introduced the Bill, evidently thought it undesirable to include such a provision. He strongly objected to the precedent which such an enactment would set up.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)
entirely supported what the noble Lord had said. Such a provision would be contrary to a generally recognised principle of English criminal law, and he thought it would be extremely undesirable to introduce it in the measure under consideration. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted.

THE EARL OF MAYO
said that after the statement of the noble and learned Lord he could not do otherwise than accept the Amendment.