Lords Sitting of 22 May 1906

Preamble
The Earl of Aylesford took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with: Corporation of London (Black-friars and other Bridges).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Great Eastern Railway Bill. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported, without Amendment.
Manchester Churches Bill [H.L.]. Bombay, Baroda, and Central India Railway (Purchase) Bill [H.L.]. North East Lincolnshire Water Bill. Scottish Union and National Insurance Company Bill [H.L.]. Warboys (Union of Districts) Drainage Bill [H.L.]. Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Electric Supply) Bill [H.L.] Reported, with Amendments.
Crellin's Patents Bill [H.L.]. Reported, without Amendment.
New Mills Urban District Council Bill. The King's consent signified; and and Bill reported, with Amendments.
London and North Western Railway Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Cumberland Electricity and Power Gas Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
County of Durham Electric Power Supply Bill [H.L.]. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill [H.L.]. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
Ascot District Gas Bill; Brixham Gas (Electric Lighting) Bill. Brought from
1074
the Commons; road 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Accrington District Gas and Water Board Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill. Brought from the Commons and read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners. (No. 97.)
Marriages Provisional Order Bill. Brought from the Commons, and read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Friday next (The Earl of Beauchamp). (No. 98.)
Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill. House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Friday next.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Statement of the moneys expended on education under Part I. and Part II. respectively of the Education Act, 1902, by each local education authority for the year 1904–1905, and, so far as can be estimated, for the year 1905–1906, showing the amount provided from Exchequer grants and from local rates respectively, and in each case the amount of the rate in the £.
  Statement as to the age at which compulsory education begins in certain foreign countries.

  SOUTH AFRICA.
  Customs Union Convention provisionally agreed to by the representatives of the South African Colonies at a Conference held at Pietermaritzburg in March, 1906.
  Correspondence relating to an agreement for lease of pearl fisheries on the coast of Ceylon.
  EMIGRATION.
  Report on the Emigrants Information Office for the year ended December 31st, 1905.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX).
  Order made by the council of the county of Middlesex reconstituting the parliamentary polling districts in the county. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT.
  University Court Ordinance No. XV. Edinburgh No. 6). Regulations for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Forestry. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 96.)

  TRADE REPORTS: I. ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3595. Portugal (Azores).
  No. 3594. Greece (Cephalonia and Zante).
  No. 3595. Italy (Sicily).
  No. 3596. Netherlands (Rotterdam).

  II. MISCELLANEOUS SERIES.
  No. 650. Arms Industry of Liége.
  FISHERIES (SCOTLAND).
  Twenty-fourth Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, being for the year 1905. Part I. General Report.

  LONDON TRAFFIC.
  Report of the Royal Commission appointed to enquire and report as to the means of locomotion and traffic in London. Vol. IV. Appendices with Index.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS (REGISTRATION OF PATENT AGENTS) BILL [H.L.]
  Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next.
  ELECTIONS (MEETINGS IN SCHOOL ROOMS) BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments. The Report of the Amendments to be received on Friday next; and Bill be printed as amended. (No. 99.)
  POLICE (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee with further Amendments. The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House and by the Standing Committee to be received on Friday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 100.)

  CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL [H.L.]
  Moved, "That the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, before the House resolves itself into Committee, I think we are entitled to ask from the Lord Chancellor some further explanation of the intentions of His Majesty's Government in regard to one portion of this Bill. I apologise to your Lordships for not having been present on the occasion of the Second Reading, when I should have made some of the observations that I feel it my duty to make this afternoon, but I was absent on circuit in South Wales, and it was not possible for me to attend. I am quite sure that, whatever may be the view of your Lordships on this matter, you will feel that there are certain considerations that ought to be borne in mind before we undertake the Committee stage of the Bill.
  I am in no way opposed to the constitution of a Court of Criminal Appeal within certain limits, and, to clear the air, I will state at once that which I think would be a desirable amendment of the law in connection with criminal appeals. There should, I think, be a Court of Criminal Appeal, to which persons convicted should have free access upon the question whether there was any evidence to go to the jury, upon all questions of misdirection, upon all questions of non-reception or misreception of evidence, upon any question of law raised at the trial, and upon any question as to the illegality of the sentence. I postpone for the moment the question of appeal with regard to the severity of the sentence, because that raises different and subordinate considerations. Whether or not proceedings, in error should be abolished is a matter not of great importance. I should have

  1077
  no objection to a Court of Appeal dealing with those. I pass it by only with this word of notice, in order that there may not be any idea that I wish in any way to fetter the jurisdiction of the new Court of Criminal Appeal, if established, in matters of law.
  I now come to that part of the case on which I shall venture to detain your Lordships for a few minutes, because it is a matter of the very greatest importance and one which affects the administration of the criminal law. I notice that my noble and learned friend Lord James of Hereford, in supporting the Second Heading of this Bill, said, and said truly, that judges are not reformers. My Lords, they are not, because when one is honoured with judicial office one considers that as far as possible one should keep clear from anything approaching to Party politics, and I should not intervene in this afternoon's proceedings if the question we had to discuss was one which involved any matter of Party politics I am quite sure that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will agree that the administration of the criminal law should be kept free from any question of Party politics.
  I speak, of course, solely for myself. His Majesty's judges have no representation in this House, and it is a mere accident that I have the privilege of a seat hero. I will indicate to your Lordships how far in some opinions of mine I am supported by my brethren, but I alone am responsible for what I say, and it must not be thought that His Majesty's judges desire in any way to interfere in that which may be thought to be the policy of the Government. Having said this, I wish to make one further observation, and I make it in consequence, partly, of what was said during the Second Reading discussion on this Bill. Whatever may be the decision of your Lordships' House and the other House of Parliament on any question of reform in the administration of the law, be it in civil of criminal procedure, I can assure the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that His Majesty's judges, whatever their experience may be, be it little or be it great, will place it most unreservedly at the disposal of any Government who may introduce such a measure in order to make the measure workable and effective.
  1078
  The main objection which I raise to this Bill is that it contemplates a right of appeal on fact in all cases of conviction on indictment. That is a momentous change, and it will, in my judgment, so defeat the object of those who promote this Bill that it is absolutely necessary that I should make my meaning perfectly clear. I do not intend to refer to previous Bills. I do not intend to quote the opinions of others, however eminent. I am aware that it will be thought that I am thereby to a large extent cutting away from myself a strong argument which might be used in support of my position, but I feel that when a measure of this character has been introduced on the authority of His Majesty's Government, when it has been moved in this House by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I ought to consider it on its own merits. I ought to consider how far its proposals commend themselves to my experience, and I ought not to shelter myself, or support my arguments by reference to any preconceived opinions of others who have studied this subject before.
  The main argument used in support of this Bill by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, in moving it, was the analogy of appeals in civil cases. It was suggested, quite truly, that in certain cases in the High Court, however small might be the matter at stake, and even if it be only a question of change of venue and of procedure, there is an appeal to the Court of Appeal and ultimately to your Lordships' House. I do not dispute that. In ninety-nine out of every hundred cases in which amounts under £100 are involved, there is, however, no appeal on the question of fact. But I am not going to base my argument on, any comparison for the moment. I say, and I say it advisedly, that the whole system of our criminal procedure is contrary to any such proposal as is made in this Bill for an appeal on fact, and I hope to satisfy your Lordships that, instead of being an advantage to innocent persons, it would create a danger for them which no Court of Appeal could protect them against.
  I would remind your Lordships what the essential difference is. In civil disputes you have two parties. One party does not know the details of the evidence to be given by the other party,

  1079
  sometimes not even the substance. That is entirely absent from the administration of criminal law. There are no two parties. It is the duty of the prosecution to make out their case to the satisfaction of the tribunal on fact, and that distinction affects the whole of our criminal procedure. Not only is there preliminary inquiry before magistrates and grand juries, but, if the prosecution propose to call any fresh evidence, they have to give notice to the person charged of what that fresh evidence is; and it is only in the very rare instance of some point being developed in the course of the trial by the defence that any evidence is heard of which intimation has not previously been given. So that in a criminal trial the accused goes into court with full knowledge of the details of the evidence to be given against him.
  What is the chief objection to the proposed change? It is my distinct conviction that such a procedure as is contemplated will undermine altogether the responsibility of juries, and will make them feel that it is not with them that the decision on the facts is ultimately to rest. They will feel that they have got behind them this Court of Appeal, so that they will be able to say, "We think the man is guilty. We are not quite sure on the evidence, but if we are wrong the Court of Appeal will set us right." That is a direct and serious danger as regards an innocent man. What is it that we now say—I have to say it a great many times a year—to juries when we are dealing with these matters? We have to tell them that theirs is the responsibility on matters of fact. We have to tell them that there is, in this respect, no appeal from their decision, and we have to tell them that unless they are as satisfied as they would be in any important event of their lives they ought to give the accused the benefit of the doubt and return a verdict of acquittal. The whole of that observation would be cut away from us.
  I know, and there are many here who know perfectly well, what has been the effect on men of far greater learning and far greater experience than jurymen of the knowledge that there is an appeal. It has at times led judges of the highest position short of your Lordships' House to approach their duties without the same feeling of responsibility as they otherwise
  1080
  would, and it has in times past been pointed out that cases have been allowed to be conducted rather slackly because they were going to the Court of Appeal. If this Bill becomes law in its present shape, I am satisfied that juries will know and feel that the responsibility is no longer theirs, and that it will make them less careful how they deal with questions of innocence and guilt. At present juries do err; they err on the side of acquittal. There are many cases in which people are acquitted by juries who, if justice was done, ought to have been convicted. The tendency, if this Bill passes, must be for juries to feel their responsibility much less.
  Will your Lordships for a moment consider what is the danger to an innocent man? What is the position when the verdict goes before the tribunal of three or five judges? Are your Lordships to be satisfied with the standard which now prevails in every case where the jury have decided the question of fact? The only circumstances under which the Court of Appeal may now order a new trial when there has been a verdict of a jury, is when the court have come to the conclusion that the verdict was one which no jury could reasonably have found. In criminal cases not only will there have been previous investigation, but in ninety-nine eases out of 100 no judge will allow a case to go to a jury unless there is substantial evidence against the prisoner. What will be the position of the Court of Appeal? They will have before them the verdict of a jury who have seen the witnesses; they will have before them the verdict of a jury presumably on a proper direction, because if there is misdirection there ought to be an appeal.
  But I ask your Lordships to consider the peril of an innocent man who may have had a verdict of guilty against him, the jury feeling less responsibility in their verdict. When he gets to the Court of Appeal it will be urged that that verdict was given in sight of the witnesses and under the proper direction of the judge. If that were the only difficulty, if I were to stop at this objection, I would submit that this Bill, giving a general right of appeal, creates a danger which threatens those we are most anxious to protect— the innocent. What is this appeal? The appeal which is now suggested does not exist in any other tribunal, civil or

  1081
  criminal. It is absolutely new. The Memorandum on the Bill points out what is perfectly true, that there is an appeal to quarter sessions in cases of summary conviction; but that appeal to quarter sessions is a rehearing. The witnesses are recalled, and the court has the same opportunity of judging of their demeanour as the court of first instance had. This Court of Appeal is to have no such opportunity which, in my humble judgement, is absolutely necessary in order to come to a correct conclusion as to whether or not people are telling the truth in a criminal matter.
  On what evidence is the Court of Appeal to act? Is it to act on the depositions? They are admirable as a prima, facie case, but over and over again most important points in favour of the prisoner or of the case for the prosecution are not brought out until the witness is examined and cross-examined at the trial. The judge's note, though it may be quite sufficient and well adapted to enable the judge to direct the jury who have heard the witnesses, would be wholly insufficient for the Court of Appeal. Are they, then, to act on a shorthand note? I enter my emphatic protest against the guilt or innocence of any man being determined by a tribunal which has not the witnesses before it. It is suggested in this Bill that some report is to be given by the judge who has presided at the trial. How is that to work? How are reports to be obtained after quarter sessions have separated? That is a very important matter. When it falls to my painful lot to preside at a trial for murder the report I send to the Home Office is prepared with care, and the note I take is one which will be of some assistance to the court; but the system of appeal contemplated by this Bill, of remitting to three or five judges the determination of questions of fact, is a complete innovation. It is tried for the first time in criminal law, and in my judgment it is fraught with the greatest danger to innocent persons. It astounds me that it should be thought that a Court of Appeal in a criminal case should hear the case in the absence of the prisoner. I do not know why his presence is to be unnecessary.
  Further, it is generally recognised, and in support of this statement I might cite passages from the Report of the important Commission presided over in 1879 by Lord
  1082
  Blackburn, that if there is to be an appeal in criminal cases there must be a new trial, and it is because this is an innovation in, and a fundamental departure from, our criminal procedure that I think it right to enter my protest against it. I do not for a moment refer to the probable number of appeals. If this Bill were passed in its-present shape there would be many hundreds of appeals, but I am not going to argue the question from that point of view. If it is right, it ought to be passed whatever may be the burden put on the country. But, as this Bill is framed, it gives an appeal to the rich which the poor cannot avail themselves of. This is no claptrap argument; it is the fact. If these appeals are to be of any use, there must be counsel, and solicitors, and all the documents and other matter must be put properly before the Court. Such a costly appeal may be for the benefit of the company promoter with any amount of money who has been charged with fraudulent conspiracy, but it will not benefit the poor man in the event of there having been some miscarriage of justice. The procedure is wholly insufficient, to meet that difficulty. Moreover, the difficulties in the way of the practical working of this scheme are almost, insuperable as the Bill is now framed.
  I feel my responsibility so gravely in this matter that I do not hesitate to ask your Lordships to hear me on another part of the question. If I am right in saying that there has not been thought in past times necessity for this reform, has anything happened in the last few years to call for this particular amendment of the law? As was to be expected, reference was made in the course of the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill to the Beck case. I wish noble Lords who may have to deal with this matter would do what I have had to do—namely, very carefully study the Beck Report. I assert without fear of contradiction that an appeal on fact would have been no good whatever in the Beck case. No Court of Appeal on a question of fact could possibly have reversed that finding. The miscarriage of justice in the Beck case was due to a misdirection on the part of the learned judge, a misdirection so grave that now that attention has been called to it one

  1083
  wonders how it ever could have taken place. But it was a misdirection which would have been set right by the Court of Appeal on the matter of law. Therefore, I say the only case that has been mentioned in order to suggest the pressing necessity for appeals on matters of fact is one which would have been met by an appeal on matters of law, by an appeal on the question of misdirection, and which in no way calls for this provision for appeal on questions of fact. It was from that point of view that I had the honour of assisting my noble and learned friend, Lord Halsbury, in preparing the Bill which passed your Lordships' House last year, to increase the facilities for appeals in matters of law.
  There is a matter which is not sufficiently recognised in this House or in the country, to which attention has recently been called by a very great lawyer, and which I have for a long time determined that I would bring to the notice of your Lordships when I had an opportunity. I refer to the enormously improved condition of the innocent man, due to the fact that he can now give evidence on his own behalf. For many years I pressed that measure on the House of Commons. My noble and learned friend, Lord Halsbury—it will for ever live to his honour—took the matter up, and the present Act was passed under his auspices. I have watched the practice of that Act most carefully, inasmuch as it bears directly on the point I am endeavouring to argue, the necessity for an appeal on fact, and I have found that in many cases a verdict of acquittal has been given on the evidence of the accused person alone; and I go so far as to say that if an accused man will tell the truth at the early stages before the magistrate, so as to give time for inquiry, his ultimate conviction, if he is innocent, is almost an impossibility. I will not say an impossibility, because I do not wish to exaggerate. I have never pretended in all my advocacy of the Prisoners Evidence Act that it was any protection to the guilty. Your Lordships do not wish to pass an Act of Parliament for the protection of the guilty, but this particular Act has been a great protection to the innocent.
  I will give your Lordships three of many cases. I tried at Ipswich an indictment against three men
  1084
  for grievously assaulting a poor sailor. On the evidence of the prosecution, all three assaulted him, and he did not know which one injured him. From the evidence of the prosecution there was not the slightest possibility of distinguishing between the three men. One of them, an ex-soldier, asked to give evidence. He gave his evidence extremely well. He admitted he had been there. He said he joined the other two men, but after a few minutes became ashamed of himself and asked the other men to desist, but as they would not he left them. That may or may not have been the true fact, but my point is that the defence could not possibly have been put before the jury except by the prisoner being allowed to give evidence.
  To give more recent cases I will quote two that I tried at the Cardiff Assizes two weeks ago. One was a charge of murder and the other of manslaughter. The former case was one in which a wife had been killed in a particularly brutal manner. Evidence of the circumstances under which the injury was done to the deceased woman was given by the prisoner himself in a way which commended it to the jury, who reduced the crime from murder to manslaughter; and nothing but the prisoner's evidence could have done it. At the same Assizes a man was indicted for manslaughter, for stabbing another man in the eye with an umbrella, which led to his death. Upon the evidence of those who saw the affray and of the doctors called for the prosecution no other verdict but one of manslaughter could be given. That man went into the witness box and described that the deceased, who was a friend of his, was drunk at the time and that in a slight quarrel he stumbled on to the point of the umbrella, which went through his eye to his brain and killed him. That man was acquitted, and in my opinion rightly acquitted, by the jury. It may be contended that cases of acquittal such as this may be wrong, but that does not touch my point; they demonstrate the absolute necessity of allowing the accused to give evidence.
  I must now say a word or two upon the other part of the Bill to which I take exception; but I am free to admit that this is not so much a matter of principle with me as is the topic on which I have addressed your Lordships. I refer to the tribunal for the consideration of the

  1085
  severity of sentences. I am aware that in the year 1892 a resolution was passed by the then judges of the Queen's Bench in favour of there being such a tribunal. The circumstances were very peculiar. At that time there were certain excessive sentences which very much troubled the Home Secretary. That is all that need be said about them; but it must be remembered that every one who has had the courage to propose this has always given a free hand to the tribunal as to how the sentence was to be dealt with, and I think it would be a lamentable thing that men should be allowed to appeal on the ground of severity of sentence without the possibility of the Court of Appeal increasing the sentence. Again the position has been changed. The judges of the High Court now work upon a memorandum to which we are all agreed, and during the last eight or ten years no one can say that High Court sentences have erred on the side of severity. I have a very strong feeling that, if there is to be reduction in the severity of a sentence, which is, after all, part of the prerogative of mercy, it would be better that it should be brought about by an administrative act of the Home Secretary than by a Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal can only deal with the ease. The Home Secretary may properly have on such a matter put before him statements having no direct relevance to the particular case. But that is not all. I would take your Lordships' minds back to what happens in a court of assize. On a person being convicted the judge asks the police to give the fullest information with respect to the prisoner, his antecedents, and his recent mode of life. I believe it to be quite impossible to reproduce in a Court of Appeal what I may call the atmosphere of that Court. If it should be thought desirable, let the Home Secretary have increased facilities for consulting the judges of the King's Bench Division. I shall not say one single word against that, but I do seriously say that this is a matter which scarcely merits or renders necessary the proposed amendment of the law.
  The case must be made out for these changes. I am sure that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will not suggest that your Lordships ought to make this great change in the law merely
  1086
  on his ipse dixit or on the statement that it is the Bill, of His Majesty's Government. It is only a compliment to my noble and learned friend to say that his lot has fallen in pleasanter places than in the criminal courts, but I support myself by what I know to be the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Halsbury, than whom there is no one in this country whose opinion on a matter of criminal law is entitled to greater weight. The views I have expressed are entertained by all my brethren in the King's Bench, who daily throughout the whole course of the year administer the criminal law, and your Lordships know from the public Press that they are the views largely shared by recorders, who have a very large share in the administration of the criminal law and are very learned and experienced men, and also by chairmen of quarter sessions, many of whom have had long practical experience of this question.
  The certainty, the expedition, and, above all, the justice of our criminal procedure has been the admiration of jurists of all civilised nations; but the bedrock and foundation of that system is the recognised duty of the prosecutor to make out his case upon the facts so as to satisfy a jury, and that from the verdict of that jury there is no appeal on questions of fact. This Bill undermines that principle. In my opinion it will lead juries in cases of doubt to shelter themselves under the authority of a Court of Appeal, and that will involve the greatest danger to an innocent person which no safeguard in the Bill can diminish. I feel as certain as I stand here that it will create a very great danger to him, against which no Court of Appeal that does not have the witnesses before it can protect him. I have endeavoured, feebly I know, but still from conviction, to pat this view before your Lordships. I speak with some experience of the administration of the criminal law and with six years experience as Chief Justice, and I say make this change if you will, but make it only with full knowledge of the issues involved; and I hope it will not be made unless the arguments I have put before your Lordships are answered to your Lordships' satisfaction.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I should like to say a few words at this

  1087
  stage of the Bill, as circumstances prevented my taking any part in the discussion on the Second Reading. It is impossible for any of your Lordships not to he profoundly impressed by the weighty statement that has just been made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice of England. My noble and learned friend speaks with the weight of his high character, his wide experience, and his close connection with the administration of the criminal law. It is impossible to overstate the importance, the difficulty, and the complexity of this Bill. It practically seeks to work an absolute revolution in the whole criminal law.
  I have every sympathy with the good intentions of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I am sure that he has applied himself most earnestly to working out this reform in the best possible way, but anyone who, speaking generally, is in favour of the principle of a Court of Criminal Appeal will, when he comes to put his ideas into a Bill, discover the vast difficulties and complexities that surround an apparently simple task. Juries in returning their verdicts are actuated by a deep sense of their responsibilities. It is perfectly obvious that that is the great central fact to be borne in mind, and anything that strengthens that feeling is good, whilst anything that weakens it is bad and detrimental to the administration of justice.
  This Bill, in my opinion, is both excessive and incomplete. It gives without restriction an appeal in every criminal case where the conviction is one on indictment. I say at once, with all deference to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that that is impossible. It would be impossible to administer the criminal law with such a gigantic change as that. I am told that in the year 1904 there were over 9,000 such prisoners convicted. Why should they not all appeal? Would not any prisoner who was not a fool at once appeal? This Bill does not even say that a man who has pleaded guilty should not appeal. Such a man might say, "I will appeal and try my chance." That is a very grave and serious matter. The first great blot I find on the Bill is that which was commented on by my noble and learned friend—namely, the essential weakening of the responsibilities of juries if they
  1088
  know that any errors they commit can be at once reviewed by the Court of Appeal on the service of a notice by the prisoner.
  I agree with what my noble and learned friend said as to the false analogy on which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack largely rested his case—the analogy of civil cases. No analogy that I can see could justify the wide extent to which that argument was pressed. If a jury in a civil case gives what is known as a clean verdict on sufficient evidence, without the judge expressing dissatisfaction, no one would be so silly as to dream of thinking that an appeal could lie. There is another circumstance to destroy the analogy. In civil cases a person appeals subject to the peril of costs. That is an immense and obvious check. But under this Bill a prisoner, without consideration of, and it may be against, advice, can appeal by the mere service of a notice. Then I have to point out that this is obviously a rich man's Bill. Any one who has money will always appeal, and there is no vestige of check. He would not have to run the risk of paying the costs as in a civil case.
  Again, under no circumstances can the sentence be increased. I am sure the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack feels as much as any one that the Bill in its present shape cannot be passed without limitations. That is manifest from the discussion which has taken place. The unanimous opinion in the Press is that without a limitation of some sort the Bill is unworkable and must break down. The question is, what check should be applied, whether it should be necessary to obtain leave to appeal. This is a matter well worthy of consideration. The Bill gives power to the Court of Appeal, without a retrial, without hearing or seeing the witnesses, without, it may be, hearing or seeing the prisoner, to recast the sentence. It does not mention from beginning to end that there should be a power of granting a new trial. New trials have been suggested as a possible direction to be given by the Court of Criminal Appeal I admit that it must be after very great consideration. If should be thought right to have new trials it is obvious that then the question has to be considered how many new trials are to be allowed, and how it is to apply in a murder case.

  1089
  I see great difficulty in going so far as the Bill goes in regard to the revision of sentences. It is very easy to say that sentences are unequal and unevenly distributed and that there should be some uniformity; but can anyone who has listened to the speech of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice conceive anything better than the action which has apparently been taken by the judges themselves in bringing about interchange of opinion so as to arrive at common views as to the way in which certain crimes should be punished? I see difficulty in handing over to any Court of Criminal Appeal the power of measuring sentences. The judge who passes sentence sees the prisoner; he sees his demeanour through the trial; he sees and hears all the witnesses, and he has every opportunity of examining into the guilt or innocence of the accused. Assuming his capacity, which we must assume, a judge of the High Court is the best conceivable person to decide what would be a proper sentence for a particular crime in all the circumstances of the case.
  What is the necessity for interfering with the present system and embarking on this great departure? At present any prisoner who is dissatisfied can appeal to the Home Secretary, and I understand that many thousands of cases go to the Home Secretary. It may be necessary that the jurisdiction of the Home Secretary should be strengthened, and that he should be assisted by more legal aid; and it is obvious from what the Lord Chief Justice said that there would be no reluctance on his part to seeing very adequate legal assistance given to the Home Secretary. Although it may be wise to sot up a Court of Criminal Appeal, and to increase the facilities for the hearing of appeals on questions of law, I see great difficulty in going as far as the Bill goes in regard to the revision of sentences. Having regard to the attention which the Bill has attracted, and to the vast changes which it proposes, would it not be prudent, if not to postpone the Committee Stage, at least to enter upon it only pro forma.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships have listened with great interest to the weighty arguments of the two noble and learned
  1090
  Lords who have, addressed you this evening, but I think their speeches must have left you in some doubt as to the course that is intended to be pursued. I was under the impression, after listening to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, that he was opposing the Motion that the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. I now gather from Lord Ashbourne the course he will take when the Bill gets into Committee. I think it would be better that we should have some intimation from my noble and learned friends as to the course which it is intended to pursue. I earnestly hope your Lordships will allow the Bill to go into Committee. We have had practically a Second Reading debate, though I fully appreciate that my noble and learned friends were prevented by their judicial duties from being present at the previous stage. But my noble and learned friends have both spoken as if the Bill now before the House were the only Bill that could emerge from Committee
  I am not committed to the Bill as it stands. I admit that there is a great deal of force in what has been said by my noble: and learned friends, but while they admit that some Court of Criminal Appeal is necessary, even if only in the direction of further powers being given to the Home Office, they are resisting the only possible means of fashioning this Bill into a good and workable measure. I do not, of course, know what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is going to say. But he has not said that he will accept no Amendment. If he should take that course I should not be able to support him, because I think the Bill can be improved in its practicability and in its utility. Let me give an instance of what I mean. The noble and learned Lord who spoke last dwelt eloquently upon the fact that every criminal should have a right of appeal, but he said that if that right were given there should be power to increase the sentence. I think that has to be remedied. How is the remedy to be effected? If it is to be effected at all, it must be done in Committee. My noble and learned friend Lord Cross, who has had great experience in the criminal law, was the author of the Commission which reported in 1879. The learned judges selected by my noble friend to-form that Commission, who were presided

  1091
  over by Lord Blackburn, reported in favour of a Court of Criminal Appeal.
  LORD ALVERSTONE: Not on fact.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: Yes. I refer my noble and learned friend to Section 544. They reported in favour of an appeal on fact. But I admit that the recommendation was not in the terms of this Bill, for they recommended that there should be a preliminary application for leave to appeal. The recommendation of that Commission is now embodied in the Amendments which stand on the Paper in the name of Lord Cross, which neither of the noble and learned Lords who have spoken has referred to. That is the Court of Criminal Appeal which I shall support in Committee. I do not know what course my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will take, but I do hope that the Amendments standing in the name of Lord Cross will be inserted, thus getting rid of the principal objections which have been made to-day. If you refuse to go into Committee on this Bill you will be shutting out the power of discussing these Amendments.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I have not said that I was against the Bill going into Committee.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: But I gathered that that was the attitude of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice.
  LORD ALVERSTONE: I made my speech in order that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack might tell us how he proposed to deal with appeal on fact. I did not at all object to the House going into Committee on the Bill.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: Then if we are to go into Committee on the Bill I do not think it is advisable to continue this debate on the Motion to resolve into Committee.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, I entirely agree with the Lord Chief Justice that this is not, and cannot be, in any sense what is called a political question. So far as I am concerned, I am unaffected by the slightest tinge of Party feeling in intro-
  1092
  ducing the Bill. The Lord Chief Justice said, very truly, that the Prisoners' Evidence Act has worked admirably in the cause of justice. I did my best to forward the passage of that measure through the House of Commons, and I remember well the prophecies that were indulged in as to the disastrous effect it would have on the administration of justice, not by obscure persons, but by men of great judgment and authority on law. There is an ingrained predisposition on the part of members of the legal profession to resist reforms affecting the law. I do not mean that their motives are anything but the best. I will recall one instance. Lord Campbell, who was a great authority, resisted to the last the proposal some fifty years ago which allowed parties in civil actions to give evidence. He declared that it would be the ruin of the administration of justice, but four or five years afterwards you will find recorded in his note-book the confession that he had been entirely wrong, and that the reform had not only proved useful but had been absolutely necessary for the administration of justice. Therefore I desire to point out that when we hear warnings of the terrible consequences that will flow from the passing of this Bill it is desirable to recall that prophecies of the same kind have been made before and have rarely been realised. The Bill, in the first instance, proposes that there shall be an appeal on the point of law. There has been no criticism of that section.
  LORD ALVERSTONE: I spoke in favour of it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Secondly, it proposes that there shall be an appeal in regard to the sentence. With regard to that, is it rash or presumptuous on my part to make a proposal substantially the same as one that was made fourteen years ago by that most august body the Council of Judges? The part of the Bill that has been most criticised is the section allowing an appeal on fact. But all the proposal amounts to is that a prisoner who is tried and convicted shall have the right to appeal to the Lord Chief Justice and three or five other judges, and that they shall have the power, not of increasing sentences, not of rendering a man guilty who has been pronounced innocent, but of declaring innocent a man who has

  1093
  been pronounced guilty. Is there anything inherently unjust or unreasonable in saying that three or five Judges shall have the opportunity of applying their practised and powerful intellects to sifting the evidence on which a man had been convicted and if they find him innocent, extending to him, not mercy or pardon, but acquittal? That may be right or wrong, the difficulties may be overwhelming, but it is not a subject for ridicule or derision.
  LORD ALVERSTONE: I was not guilty of ridicule or derision. The matter is far too serious for that.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should be the last to reflect on what the noble and learned Lord said. I am quite sure be desires to act in a perfectly friendly way. It is said that the Bill is a Bill for the rich and not for the poor. If every prisoner is to be entitled to an appeal— to have the report of the Judge and the evidence taken at his trial sent foward to the Court of Criminal Appeal for consideration—how can it be said that it is a Bill for the rich and not for the poor? I think some proposal of this kind is necessary because of the fallibility of Judges. There is an appeal, substantially, in all civil causes, both on the law and on the fact; and it is a significant thing that miscarriage of justice has been not infrequently proved in civil causes, even when they are tried before special juries and eminent Judges. I agree that the administration of the criminal law in this country is deservedly lauded throughout the world. What I desire is to make it as perfect as it can possibly be. Is it to be said that Judges and juries who are fallible in civil cases are infallible in criminal cases? Surely if there is a liability to error in the one Court there is a liability to error in the other Court also; and as there is nothing more dreadful than an innocent person convicted and sent to gaol, an effort should be made to establish some sort of appeal in criminal as well as in civil cases.
  My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice said that juries would lose their sense of responsibility by reason of there being a Court of Appeal. Can anybody really believe that, when a jury are sworn in a grave matter or even in
  1094
  a trifling matter, they will not trouble as much about whether a man is guilty of murder or of stealing as they otherwise would do because there is a Court of Criminal Appeal? I do not really believe that men who were engaged in the serious duty of trying a man for his life or his liberty would for a moment pay the slightest attention to any consideration of the kind. I hope I am not an unreasonable person, but I did think, and I still think, that there ought to be as free a right of appeal in criminal cases as there is in civil cases. I do not think it would involve such a tremendous expense as is supposed. But even supposing we were to add three new Judges, who would constitute a Court sitting all the year round, the expenditure would only amount to £15,000 a year, and that is nothing to be considered in comparison with so important a reform in the administration of the criminal law.
  I have expressed my own view, but I recognise the weight of the representations made by the Lord Chief Justice, whose opinion I most sincerely respect, and by others, and I am prepared to accept the suggestions made by the noble Viscount Lord Cross in the Amendments which he has placed on the Paper. The substance of those Amendments is that appeals shall be allowed only where the Judge at the trial thinks there ought to be an appeal or where the Court of Criminal Appeal itself thinks there ought to be an appeal. That is substantially what was recommended by the Royal Commission of 1879; it is the same proposal that was made by a Committee of the House of Commons in 1883, and one which has been recommended to me by the Association of Chairmen of Quarter Sessions.
  I regret very much that that does not dispose of all the Amendments, because the noble and learned Earl, Lord Halsbury, has put down Amendments which would forbid any appeal under any circumstances on questions of fact. I hope the noble and learned Earl will not persist in that proposal to the practical wrecking of the Bill. I do not think my original proposals were either ludicrous or unreasonable, but I have done, as I always will do, my best to meet reasonable criticism and reasonable Amendments.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, the conciliatory manner in which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has met the criticisms that have been made disposes us to see whether we cannot, in some way or another, meet him. I confess, however, that if the question of fact is to be disposed of by any Court that does not see or hear the witnesses, I shall be compelled to adhere to my Amendments. But if the concession which the Lord Chancellor is prepared to make goes so far as the possibility of a new trial in criminal cases, I should like an opportunity of considering the matter with a view of seeing whether we cannot meet the noble and learned Lord. I want to make it distinctly plain that, if an attempt is made to abolish the right of a man to be tried by a jury, and by a jury alone, I shall persist in my Amendment. Nothing will induce me to agree to a departure from the right of trial by jury, which I believe to be the foundation of our system of jurisprudence.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, may I, with the indulgence of the House, say a further word? Papers were circulated this morning containing Amendments to be moved by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, but not making any suggestion of this kind. The matter is a very important one, and I would repeat the suggestion I made at the close of my observations, that the Bill should be committed pro forma today. This would enable the noble and learned Lord to have it reprinted, with the Amendments that he is prepared to accept inserted.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: So far as I follow the noble Earl, what he wishes is that, if there is no evidence to go to the jury, a verdict ought to be entered for the defendant. That is what I mean also. But if there is evidence which the Court thinks ought to be submitted to the jury—evidence which in the opinion of the Court would or might justify a conviction—then they might order a new trial. If there is any confusion about it, I would much rather that the further consideration of the Bill should stand over in order that we might be able to meet and consider it.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I feel sure your Lordships will
  1096
  be grateful to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack if he will give us an opportunity of considering this important question further. It is one not very easy for the lay mind to follow, although I am bound to say that, if the matters had been left where the speech of the Lord Chief Justice left them, I should have felt constrained to vote with my noble and learned friend Lord Halsbury, in favour of the Amendment which he has put down. But I understand that the Lord Chancellor accepts in substance, although not necessarily in the same-words, the Amendments which have been; put on the Paper by my noble friend Lord Cross: and I would venture to suggest to him that it would be convenient to the House if the Bill were reprinted in the form in which it is proposed to accept my noble friend Lord Cross's Amendments.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords. I should1, like to explain that the Amendments of which I have given notice are the outcome of a consideration of the Bill by the Association of Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, which body has been in existence-for forty years, and of which I have been chairman for tire past twenty years When this Bill was introduced I thought it necessary that a special meeting of the association should be called in order to consider the terms of it. I may mention that it was the largest meeting that I have had the honour to preside over, and it was attended by men of the highest possible experience. They were unanimously against criminal appeal on fact unless it was subject to certain restrictions, and in compliance with their Resolution I have placed an Amendment on the Paper providing that on the ground of fact or of mixed law and fact an appeal shall be allowed if—(a) the Judge or chairman who heard the case is dissatisfied with the-verdict or gives his consent to the appeal; (b) the Secretary of State thinks that the appeal should be allowed; or (c) the Court of Appeal, on application to it, gives leave to appeal; but in no other case. Those are restrictions to which I do not think anybody can object.
  The great difficulty in the Bill as it originally stood was that you ware taking away from the jury the final decision of fact and giving that decision to three or five Judges who had not heard the

  1097
  evidence, who had not seen the prisoner, and who would not hear the witnesses again. The Association of Chairmen of Quarter Sessions came to a Resolution upon that which I think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is also willing to accept—namely, that the Court of Appeal should not have power to reverse the finding of a jury on questions of fact otherwise than by ordering a new trial.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, I am afraid it can hardly be claimed that the regularity of your Lordships' proceedings Constitutes an example to the other deliberative assemblies throughout the world. We have had what amounts to both a Second Reading debate and a discussion on Amendments which are on the Paper though we are not yet in Committee. It has been suggested that the best course for your Lordships to pursue would be to go into Committee pro forma. I am sorry I cannot agree with that suggestion. I think we should get into considerable difficulty. There seems to be a certain amount of agreement between the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and my noble friend who has these Amendments on the Paper, and I suggest that it would be better to adjourn the debate on the Motion now before us to allow the Amendments to be put into such a shape as my noble friend wishes the Committee to deal with them.
  THK EARL OF HALSBURY: I beg to protest against the statement as to the irregularity of making Second Reading speeches on the Motion to go into Committee. On many occasions Second Reading speeches have been made on this Motion, and they are perfectly regular.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, I do not at all intend to object to the debate that we have listened to. We have heard very remarkable and interesting speeches. But I agree with the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees that it would be hotter that the debate on the Motion to go into Committee should be adjourned rather than that the Bill should be committed pro forma. I think the adjournment of the debate would be a preferable course, because then there would be no
  1098
  question as to the Amendments until they were brought forward properly for discussion. Although we have had a most interesting debate, I venture to say that we have heard, as we occasionally do in this House, noble Lords speak several times notwithstanding that we are not in Committee.
  Moved, "That the further debate be adjourned."—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
  Agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  On Question, Bill read 3a.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, the first Amendment I propose to move is on Clause 4. Clause 4 is the clause which was dealt with by the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Ebury relating to the use of the title of chemist and druggist. Since the last stage of the Bill in this House we have had the advantage at the Privy Council of the presence of my noble friend, and we pointed out to him that the terms of his Amendment were not entirely satisfactory, that it would not in all respects carry out what he wanted, and that the clause, in fact, ought to be recast. The only difference between this Amendment and the noble Lord's Amendment consists in this, that the titles "pharmaceutical chemist" and "pharmacist" are reserved to the actual chemist, but companies are at liberty to use the description "chemist and druggist" or "chemist" or "druggist." That is a minor concession to the Pharmaceutical Society to which I understand my noble friends opposite do not object. Therefore I beg to move my Amendment in that form to Clause 4.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 10, to leave out the words 'No body corporate shall' and to insert the words 'A body incorporate may'; in line 11, to leave out the word 'unless' and to insert the words 'and may use the description of chemist and druggist or of chemist or

  1099
  of druggist if'; in line 15, to leave out the words 'nor unless' and to insert the words 'and if': and in line 17, to leave out from the word 'business' to the end of the clause and to insert the words 'Subject as aforesaid, Sections 1 and 15 of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, shall apply to a body corporate in like manner as they apply to an individual.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, on Clause 7—the clause relating to Ireland—I have one or two Amendments of a drafting character. These Amendments are required in order to bring this Bill into conformity with the existing Acts relating to pharmacy in Ireland.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 29, to leave out from the word 'Acts' to the end of the sub-section; in page 5, line 1, at the beginning of the subsection to insert the words 'The person appointed to conduct the business in any shop under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 or Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of this Act may be a licentiate apothecary, and'; in line 2, to leave out from '1890' to the end of the sub-section, and to insert the words 'is hereby repealed.'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The only remaining Amendment is in the Schedule. It was pointed out to us that the preparations of the ordinary red poppy (the English poppy) used for colouring medicine and for other purposes in chemistry are of a perfectly harmless character. They do not contain morphine, and there is no reason why they should be subjected to the restrictions to which the opium poppy (the foreign poppy) is subjected.
  Amendment moved—
  "In the Schedule, Part II., page 6, line 10, to leave out the words 'compositions prepared from' and to insert the words 'preparations of, excepting red poppy petals and syrup of red poppies (papaver rhœas).'"—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Moved, "That the Bill do pass."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons

JUVENILE SMOKING BILL [H.L.]

  SECOND READING
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD REAY: My Lords, this is a very modest measure designed to carry out the former part of the unanimous recommendations of the Physical Deterioration (1904) Committee The Committee recommended that a Bill should be brought before Parliament at an early date, having for its object (1) to prohibit the sale of tobacco and cigarettes to children below a certain age; (2) to prohibit the sale of tobacco and cigarettes, in sweet and other shops frequented by children.
  There is among medical men and teachers a general conviction that the evil of juvenile smoking has gained alarming dimensions, especially among small boys from ten to fourteen, years of age, and it seems to have considerably increased of late. Sir William Broadbent states that—
  "The worst mischief worked by smoking is done before the age of twenty-one. Tobacco affects the heart, nerves, and digestion most seriously in the young, and early smoking tends to establish habits of self indulgence which, with the enervating influence of the tobacco, are fatal to efficiency and strength of character."
  Sir William Broadbent would like—
  "To make smoking before the age of twenty-one a punishable offence."
  I could multiply the evidence of medical men, teachers, and employers of labour, but I will not weary your Lordships by a number of quotations. I do not think there can be any doubt about the reality of the evil. Smoking affects the eyesight and the teeth, and the prematurely aged and weary appearance of the children in one of our largest cities has been attributed to cigarette smoking.
  There is already legislation on this subject in several of our Colonies. In, Newfoundland it is forbidden to sell tobacco to children under, the age of fifteen, in New Zealand under fifteen, in New South Wales under sixteen, in Tasmania under thirteen, in Bermuda under sixteen, and in South Australia, under sixteen. As regards Canada, Ontario, and New Brunswick the age

  1101
  limit is eighteen, in Quebec, in Nova Scotia, in Prince Edward Island, in British Columbia, and in the North West Territories it is sixteen. In Cape Colony it is unlawful for a dealer to sell, supply, or give tobacco, cigars, or cigarettes to a child under the age of sixteen, except on the production of a written order signed by the parent, guardian, or employer of the young person. In Japan there is a law prohibiting persons under twenty from smoking. Parents and guardians who allow their charges to smoke are punished with a fine not exceeding 2s., and tobacco dealers who sell smoking instruments or tobacco are liable to a fine not exceeding £1.
  In the United States a large majority of the State Legislatures have passed laws against juvenile smoking. In one State the age limit is fourteen, in three it is fifteen, in a score it is sixteen, in three it is seventeen, in eight it is eighteen, and in ten it is as high as twenty-one. In thirty-five States the evil results of smoking are taught in the common schools. In the State of Pennsylvania there is a law prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to minors. There is a precedent for this legislation in regard to the consumption of spirits on the premises. The sale of spirits to a child under sixteen for consumption on the premises is prohibited by 35 and 36 Victoria, Cap. 94. This Bill is on parallel lines with the Act passed with regard to liquor. There can be no doubt that cigarette smoking is an impediment to the formation of character which, as J. S. Mill said, is "a completely fashioned will." Habit is a second nature, or as the Duke of Wellington said, "ten times of nature." This Bill will contribute to preserve the moral, mental, and physical fibre of boys. I trust that your Lordships will see your way to giving this measure a Second Reading. There is a considerable demand for this Bill, which the Home Office, after it has been read a second time, wish to be referred to a Select Committee, to which I have no objection.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Reay.)
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, if the noble Lord is going to insist on the Bill in its present form I shall certainly feel compelled to move its
  1102
  rejection. It is provided in this Bill that—
  "No person shall sell, give, or supply tobacco in any form to or for the use of any person under the age of sixteen years."
  In the corresponding Act dealing with the sale of spirituous liquors to children it is very properly provided that no person shall "knowingly" sell, which, of course, makes all the difference. It would be a monstrous provision without this qualification. I notice that further on in Clause 2 it is provided that—
  "The onus of proof of age shall lie on the person charged with a breach of the provisions of this Act."
  If these words are insisted upon it seems to me that it would be a monstrous and improper Bill. Otherwise, I have no objection to it.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE): My Lords, I was chairman of the Standing Committee on Law in another place when the Bill dealing with the sale of intoxicating liquors to children was considered, and I can inform the noble and learned Earl that the word "knowingly" was inserted after long discussion. I quite appreciate my noble friend not having inserted the word in the Bill himself, but, remembering as I do that ultimately it had to be inserted in the Liquor Bill, I can understand the question being raised here. But what I would submit to the noble and learned Earl is that these are really points which might be left to the Committee stage.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I hope what I have to say will quite satisfy the noble and learned Lord opposite. The Secretary of State intimated in another place that he would be glad if this matter could be referred to a Select Committee, and I have no doubt that they would there deal with the question which was raised by the noble and learned Lord. I understand that one of the reasons why this was suggested by the Secretary of State is that the form of the Bill does not altogether commend itself to the Home Office, and he was anxious that there should be further consideration. The speech of the noble Lord in moving the Second Reading contained a great deal of very interesting matter, which I hope will be placed before the Select.

  1103
  Committee. The Committee might also have information as to the effect of a similar prohibition in force in the Isle of Man. I think it would be advisable that the Select Committee should be appointed without delay, so that it could meet before the Whitsuntide adjournment and proceed after that regularly with its meetings.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am glad that this Bill has been introduced, but I cannot help seeing great difficulty in carrying it out owing to the wide use of what are called penny-in-the-slot machines. I do not know whether the noble Lord has considered that point. I have observed small boys obtaining cigarettes from these machines, and unless that means of supply could be stopped the consumption would not be checked.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I hope those in charge of the Bill will also remember the extreme difficulty of obtaining proof of age. We experienced that difficulty in regard to our recruits. Noble Lords will remember that it was sometimes quite impossible to prove whether a youth was eighteen or not. We were frequently told that we took a great many youths who were not eighteen, and we ended by some ingenious arrangement which enabled Army doctors to consider each individual youth and determine whether he had what was called the physical equivalents of eighteen. I cannot conceive any ingenuity that would restrict the use of such a machine as the right rev. Prelate has mentioned to a certain age.
  On Question, Bill read 2, and referred to a Select Committee.

  SCHOOL REPAIRS.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYrose to ask the Lord President of the Council whether the Board of Education could furnish a Return showing the amounts expended in repairs and improvements by each local authority since the adoption of the Education Act (1902), upon (1) Provided schools; (2) Non-provided schools, under the "wear and tear" clause; also the amounts expended by the managers of non-provided schools in
  1104
  repairs and improvements on these schools in each local authority during the same period.
  The noble Marquess said: My Lords, since I put this question to the noble Earl I have furnished him with a return from my own county giving this information. I have ascertained that it is quite easy for the local authorities to give the Return I ask for. Each educational Budget shows at the end of the year exactly what has been spent by the local authority on provided schools, and what has been given towards non-provided schools under the "wear and tear" clause. I ask for this Return because there is abroad, and I think even at the Board of Education, a very hazy notion as to the amount which has been spent since the passing of the Act of 1902 upon provided and non-provided schools. Take my own county, Huntingdonshire, as an instance. There the amount that has been expended is equivalent to more than a penny in the £ on the rates of the county. That shows what an enormous sum is already coming out of the rates for the repairs of these schools. I have seen various amounts quoted in the course of discussions, and I think we ought to have some Return showing distinctly what sum has been paid.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I have to thank the noble Marquess for his kindness in postponing this question until a day when I was able to be in the House. I wish I could give a more favourable reply to his questions, because as I stated the other day in reply to the most rev. Primate, we are only too pleased to give any statistics or figures which can throw light upon the question. I am sorry to say, in answer to the noble Marquess, that the Board of Education have no statistics in their possession which would enable them to give him the information he requires. As to obtaining it from the different local authorities, I am afraid that any such information we could get from them would be so incomplete as to be actually misleading and therefore valueless.
  In the first place, the noble Marquess is not accurate in saying that it is the custom generally to separate the expenditure on council and voluntary schools in the accounts of the local authorities. It is done, I know, in Huntingdonshire,

  1105
  but it is not done in a great many counties, and not by some of the most important and largest local authorities. As to the wear and tear repairs, it is a very common practice to include them in a general contract, and in a certain number of cases the repairs are carried out by the workmen in the employment of the local authority. In that case the noble Marquess will see that to provide figures distinguishing between the different kind of repairs it would be necessary to make a detailed examination of the time books of the various workmen employed, which, as your Lordships will see, would be a very troublesome business.
  Then as regards the amounts expended by the managers of non-provided schools, I am afraid that in order to find the amount it would be necessary to send a circular to every one of the 14,000 voluntary schools in the country, which would be a very expensive and tedious matter. There is a further point. A considerable number of the schools are privately owned. I daresay many of your Lordships own schools. In these cases the repairs are often executed by the estate workmen in the employ of the owner, and similarly in that case the amount would have to be taken out of the estate books, which I think is almost more than one could expect a private owner to do. I fear that, looking at the matter in all its bearings, the information which could be obtained from the local authorities would be of so thoroughly partial and incomplete a character that it would be misleading. I am afraid, therefore, I am not able to comply with the request the noble Marquess has made.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I agree with the noble Marquess that it would be of great advantage if it were possible to find out the amounts expended in repairs and improvements by the local authorities since the adoption of the Act of 1902. I sympathise with what the noble Marquess said as to the increase in the rates in most parts of the country, and it is by such inquiries as this that we can get an idea as to why the rates are so burdensome. Having occupied the position of President of the Board of Education I can recognise the difficulty of obtaining statistics from the local authorities, but the amount spent on
  1106
  repairs and improvements in provided and non-provided schools should be obtainable because the local authority is bound to keep the accounts of all the expenses of all schools within its area. But I admit the difficulty of differentiating the "wear and tear" expenses in non-provided schools, and I do not see how the Board of Education could find out the amount expended by the managers of non-provided schools on repairs and improvements. It would be very interesting to know what has been spent on these voluntary schools; but I think the only body that could supply the information would be the National Society.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I have been endeavouring, as regards schools connected with the Church of England, to obtain such statistics as are available of the sums spent from voluntary sources since 1892. The investigation is not quite so simple in all cases as the noble Marquess thinks. I do not, however, mean that it is not forthcoming, and any information we ultimately get will be entirely at the service of the House.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, my noble friend behind me has stated that His Majesty's Government will be most happy to give all possible information to the House in connection with the subject of education. We quite agree that it is most desirable we should do so; but the information ought to be full and not partial, or there will be a danger of all kinds of inaccurate conclusions being drawn from it. It is quite possible that the National Society may be willing to give the information, but there are many denominational schools which are not under the National Society at all. I have several schools of my own that are in connection with the Established Church because the majority of the parishioners are connected with the Established Church, but they are none of them under the National Society. The Return would, therefore, be a very imperfect one. I am afraid many private owners of schools would find it extremely difficult to make out those accounts, and I do not think they would be willing to give themselves the trouble. Do not let us have inadequate and unsatisfactory information. If we do

  1107
  we shall have all sorts of contradictory conclusions drawn from it, and it will be practically of no use at all. As to the information asked for, there is no possible chance of its being obtained in time for the discussions on the Education Bill. I therefore hope the noble Lord will not press for the Return.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: I beg to withdraw my request for the Return.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Friday next, half-past Ten o'clock.