Sitting of 19 July 1907

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Bude Gas Bill; King's Norton and Northfield Urban District Council Bill.—Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Killery's Divorce Bill [Lords]—Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Kensington Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill [Lords]—As amended, considered. To be read the third time.
Tynemouth Corporation (Water) Bill [Lords]. —As amended, considered. Amendments made; Bill to be road the third time.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 2) Bill [Lords]. —Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill. —As amended, considered. To be road the third time upon Monday next.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 1) Bill [Lords]. —Read a second time, and committed.

PETITIONS.
  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition of the Scottish Trade Protection Society, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, —From Marylebone; and, Sydenham; to lie upon the Table.
  NOTIFICATION OF BIRTHS BILL.
  Petition from Wandsworth, against; to lie upon the Table.

  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions against; From Fife; and, Grongar; to lie upon the Table.
  Petition from Midlothian, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.

  WEEKLY REST DAY BILL.
  Petition from Harlesden and other places, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  HARBOUR, ETC., BILLS.
  Return presented, —relative thereto [ordered 18th July; Mr. Lloyd-George]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 261.]
  CIVIL SERVANTS (RETIREMENT AT THE AGE OF SIXTY-FIVE).
  Return presented; relative thereto [ordered 18th July; Mr. Runciman]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 262.]
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented; of the Treasury Minute, dated 15th July, 1907, granting a Retired allowance to Mr. Harry Banks, Officer of Beeston Station, Second Class, Inland Revenue, under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Charge of Disturbance against a St. John's Wood Postman.
  MR. STEADMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a postman at St. John's Wood, while on his holidays, gave a party at his house; that afterwards an anonymous letter, complaining of piano playing and singing at untimely hours and alleging damage through the carelessness of his visitors, was sent to the postal authorities; whether be is aware that not only was the postman called upon to answer to these charges, but the postal authorities sought evidence from another postman living near; whether he will state under what regulations postal

  1023
  servants are called upon to explain officially such charges as these; and whether it is the practice of the Department to call for explanations from its servants respecting charges made by anonymous accusers.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Two complaints were received, one of which was not anonymous. I do not see any impropriety in the course adopted on the occasion to which the hon. Member refers.

  Payment of Income Tax by British Subjects Serving Abroad.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the approximate loss to the Revenue if naval and marine officers ceased to pay income-tax on their professional pay when serving abroad; and whether he can state what other classes of the community pay income-tax to the Mother Country on pay and private in comes when stationed in parts where the cost of living is enhanced by protective tariffs.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The information which my hon. and gallant friend asks for could only be obtained by an exhaustive analysis of the Navy pay sheets, involving considerable labour. All classes of the community when resident abroad are subject to income-tax upon income derived from the public revenues or from investments in the United Kingdom, without regard to the system of taxation prevailing in the particular country in which they may happen to reside; and there seems to me to be no reason why officers of the Navy should be made exempt from this rule.

  TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.
  MR. HAROLD COXsaid he gathered that the Postmaster-General was willing to accept an Amendment to Clause 1, of which notice had been given by the hon. Member for Lambeth. He therefore begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 12, to leave out the words The Telegraph Acts, 1833 to 1903,' and insert
  1024
  the words ' developing the telephonic system aforesaid.'"—(Mr. Harold Cox.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR F. BANBURYmoved an Amendment providing that the Estimates sanctioned by the Treasury for the sum annually required must be laid upon the Table of the House of Commons for thirty days. He said the object of his Amendment was to afford the House of Commons effective control over this expenditure. As the Bill was framed the only control over this expenditure of £6,000,000, would be the control of the Treasury, and he desired that in addition to that, the House of Commons should have some means of ascertaining what sum was going to be expended and how it was to be spent. He therefore thought it would be reasonable to allow the Estimates which had been sanctioned by the Treasury to appear for a short time upon the Table of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman would probably agree with him that there was not much involved in conceding the Amendment, because, unless there was very strong feeling against the proposals of the Post Office, it would not hamper the proceedings of that Department, and it was only in the event of any expenditure which created any objection or against which there was any prejudice that any action would be taken. The Amendment would, however, preserve to the House of Commons at the last moment the right to require some explanation, and he trusted the Post master-General would accept it.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTseconded, and said he considered that in view of the expenditure of large sums of money the Amendment only contained a fair and reasonable proposal, because it would secure adequate control by the House. They were entitled to protest against the growing tendency of Governments to disregard the authority of the House in regard to expenditure. If the Government would not accept an Amendment of this kind the House of Commons might as well be dissolved and the Cabinet put in charge of all these matters.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 13, after the word 'Treasury' to insert the words ' and after such

  1025
  Estimates have been laid upon the Table of the the House for thirty days.'"—(Sir F. Ban-bury.)
  Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
  *SIR FRANCIS POWELLhoped the Postmaster-General would accede to this request. The proposal contained in the Bill was a novel one and previous applications for money made by the Post Office in this respect had not gone beyond £4,000,000. Now it was proposed to give them £6,000,000 by a somewhat rough and ready procedure. The proposal of the hon. Baronet was that the House should have the power of criticising the action of the Government, but as the matter stood now they did not know whether or when they would have an opportunity of discussing the Estimate. The enormous figures involved in the Education Vote had not been debated except for a very few minutes this year; and even then the Minister in charge of the Vote did not condescend to explain matters. He was certain that every Member of the House would watch with jealousy the increasing power of the Executive, because the House of Commons was rapidly losing that power of control which was an important part of our Parliamentary history and tradition. As an old Member of the House he urged that this tendency should lie resisted by every possible means.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar)said he could not accept the Amendment for the reason that it was quite a new proposal with regard to a Loan Bill. The House had endorsed the view of the Government that there should be this loan of £6,000,000 for telephone purposes, and that being so the discretion in regard to the expenditure must necessarily remain with the Post Office and the Treasury. He had already given an assurance that the money would be spent only for the extension of the telephone system, and that the expenditure in any one year would probably not exceed £1,500,000. It would be quite impossible to carry out the expenditure of the loan under the conditions proposed by the hon. Baronet. Such a proposal would, when the House was out of session, hang up for six months
  1026
  necessary expenditure. The Post Office could never tell what was the particular expenditure required at a particular moment, and if the expenditure was liable be cease for half a year when the House was not sitting, they would not be able to increase and carry on properly the telephone system for the convenience of the public. In any case it appeared to him that, when they had to deal with a Bill of this sort, the expenditure of the money must be left to the discretion of the Minister in charge of the Department, and when money was required to carry out telephone works it should be at once available. He had assured the House that these moneys would be properly expended, and for the reason he had given he could not. accept the Amendment.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid ho had listened with some surprise to the Postmaster-General, who had said they could never tell what the amount of expenditure was going to be. Why could not they tell the precise amount?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONremarked that what he had said was that many of the items of expenditure could not be anticipated, and, if the House was not sitting, under the Amendment the money could not be obtained. Therefore, during the time the House was not sitting the telephone service might be defective.
  LORD BALCARRES: said that what he wanted to draw the particular attention of the House to was the extraordinary divergence between the policy as to this telephone loan and the policy of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues in respect to loans for naval and military works proposed by the Government during the last Parliament. It was a permanent source of complaint against the last two Governments that large sums of money were obtained by loan for naval and military works. When the present Chancellor of the Exchequer assumed office he, with the assent of the naval and military authorities, announced his intention of not continuing that system of loans. The money, spent by means of loans on naval and military works was in his judgment precisely analogous to the money to be spent under this Bill for telephone works. The naval and military works expenditure now appeared on the Estimates, where as the telephone works expenditure was

  1027
  raised under a statute. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell them what was the distinction?
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid that that did not seem to him to be relevant to this Amendment, but only to the Bill as a whole.
  LORD BALCARRESapologised for having dropped into a Second Reading argument. He thought the Estimates for telephone works should be laid on the Table of the House, and he wanted to know why the right hon. Gentleman would not do for telephone works what the other Departments did for naval and military works. There was an analogy between the two cases, but in this case the Postmaster General departed from what had been laid down as necessary for financial security and had not met the Amendment in any way. He could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman was afraid of discussion of Estimates by the House of Commons. If the right hon. Gentleman put too much in his Estimate for any one year, the money was handed back to the Treasury and in the ordinary course of events would be recredited to his Department for telephone purposes. If he spent more money than was authorised by the Estimate it was a commonplace to say that the Treasury would provide the necessary money and see that the expenditure was properly authorised later on. As he had said, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues disliked the discussion of Estimates in the House, and it was quite clear that there would be fewer days allotted to Supply in this session than in any session during the last twenty years. He objected most strongly to giving a Department power to spend enormous sums of money and to the withdrawal of the control of the House over these sums. The House of Commons should have some power of revising telephone expenditure and the rates charged for telephone services. It would under this proposal be impossible to have regular and systematic discussions on the subject. The discretion, the Postmaster General said, must rest with the Post Office, but he differed from that proposition, and he objected in regard to these gigantic loans that the House of Commons should be superseded by the Treasury and the Post Office.
  MR. HAROLD COXhoped the Post master-General would think over his objection to accept this Amendment, which was a perfectly reasonable one. If the right hon. Gentleman had accepted his Amendment to reduce the sum of £6,000,000 to £3,000,000 he would not have pressed this point, because in two years they would have had the power of revising the expenditure; but the right hon. Gentleman had taken power to spend £6,000,000 and to take it out of the control of Parliament for four years at least. That was a proposal against which they protested. They had always protested against the Loan Bills of the last Government, but now the right hon. Gentleman was doing the same thing. Why could not the right hon. Gentleman lay his Estimate before the House? The House would not assent to such a course as this in the case of the Army and Navy, in which larger sums were dealt with, and he did not see why the Postmaster-General should not put on paper how he proposed to spend each year £1,500,000 of the loan and lay it before Parliament during the session. As far as he could see, there would be no public control over this expenditure, and it would only be a question between the permanent officials of the Treasury and the permanent officials of the Post Office. It was one of the elementary maxims of Liberal finance that there should be popular control over expenditure, and he sincerely trusted the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision.
  MR. WATTalso supported the Amendment. He did not think it was asking too much to request the Postmaster-General, when he got £6,000,000 on loan, to lay the Estimates before the House.
  *MR. CARLILE:supported the Amendment, as he was sure that the more opporunities were given to the House of Commons for thoroughly discussing and considering such a proposition as that contained in the Bill the more it would be for the advantage of the public service. It seemed to him very strange that upon a proposal of this kind they should have almost absolute silence on the part of Liberal Members of the House. With the exception of the hon.

  1029
  Member for Preston, who always came to the rescue on these occasions with his well-reasoned speeches, and the hon. Member behind him, nobody had spoken from the benches opposite. The right hon. Gentleman said that if the Amendment were accepted expenditure might be hung up for six months. But for himself he did not think that that was likely to occur. The eminently reason able proposal of his hon. friend was that the House should for thirty days before the money was parted with have an opportunity of dealing with any proposal to allocate part of this large sum. The delay, therefore, would not exceed thirty days. The House was getting more and more jealous of the dictation and control of the Cabinet in such matters. Why should the Cabinet ask for a blank cheque up to £6,000,000 and claim a free hand to deal with that sum just as they pleased in the case of telephones? If the proposals were laid on the Table the House would have an opportunity of considering them and taking such stops as they considered
  likely to promote not only the efficiency of the public service, but also the principle of economy, which was one of the alleged grounds for Liberal Members being returned to the House in such overwhelming numbers. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, representing as he did a vast commercial centre, had a special interest in this matter, and he hoped the Postmaster-General would meet the proposal in a manner becoming of his great position. The time was very near when the whole system of telephones would have to be reconsidered; it was doubly important, therefore, that this matter should be discussed, so that when in 1911 the whole system was taken over they should not have to look back on the work that had been done and realise that there had been excessive waste, which there would be if the Amendment was not accepted.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 20; Noes, 107. (Division List No. 291.)
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the Amendment he now moved was an agreed Amendment put down at the desire of the Grand Committee.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 13, to leave out from the word 'Treasury,' to end of clause, and insert, 'The Treasury may, if they think fit, with a view to provide money for sums so authorised to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, or for repaying to that Fund all or any part of the sums so issued, borrow by means of terminable annuities, for a term not exceeding twenty years, and all sums so borrowed shall be paid into the Exchequer. The said annuities shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament for the service of the Post Office, and, if those moneys are insufficient, shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof, at such times in each year as may be fixed by the Treasury.'" — (Mr. Sydney Buxton..)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to he left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. HAROLD COXasked for some explanation as to why the right hon. Gentleman had only put down two paragraphs instead of three as agreed in the Committee upstairs.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONwas understood to say the other paragraph was already embodied.
  SIR F. BANBURYthought that that was so and congratulated the right hon. Gentleman in having taken the course he had, which enabled anyone who read the Bill to see what these Acts were. But he would like to know why the right hon. Gentleman had left out the three lines which came at the end of Subsection 3.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid they were left out because it left the hands of the Treasury free in prescribing these
  1032
  annuities. They were all interdepartmental annuities, and there was some restriction in these words, and, therefore, it had been the practice of the Treasury for some years to omit them in these Bills.
  MR. GRETTONsaid he did not wish to delay the House on these technical points, but he would like to call attention to the fact that this was only another instance, of which there were many in Grand Committee, of the careless drafting of Government Bills. It certainly did not tend to the expeditious conduct of business either in this House or Committees upstairs.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Proposed words there inserted.
  Bill to be read the third time on Monday next.

  TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.

    POST OFFICE SITES BILL (RECOMMITTED)
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1:—
    SIR F. BANBURY: moved to omit the provision proposing that Section 133 of the Lands Clauses Act of 1845 should not be incorporated in the Bill. To his mind that was a very reasonable section, and he did not see why, if that section applied to people generally, it should not also apply to the Post Office. He had no objection to compulsory powers being given to the Post Office to acquire new sites, but he thought the Committee had a right to say that those compulsory powers should be administered in a just way, and that no advantage should be given to the Post Office that was not

    1033
    enjoyed by other people who desired to acquire land by purchase.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 11, to leave out from the word 'Act,' to the word 'shall,' in line 13."— (Sir F. Banbury.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid there was no intention by the incorporation of the words proposed to be left out to limit the effect of the Lands Clauses Act. This was merely a question of land tax and poor rate. As the hon. Gentleman was aware, the Government, although not assessed, made a contribution to the poor rate. So far as the land tax was concerned there was no desire to avoid that. When the State had taken over this land with the existing liability for land tax it was proposed to redeem the land tax, because the payment of a tax by one Government Department to another only led to unnecessary book-keeping. There was nothing behind it, and the omission had been a common thing in all these Bills for years past.
    MR. T. L. CORBETTthought that in a technical matter of this sort the Committee ought to have the assistance of the law officers of the Crown before proceeding further in the discussion. He appealed to the Attorney-General to give the Committee the benefit of his assistance.
    MR. GRETTONsaid he did not quite follow the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman for the inclusion of these words in this particular clause. He hoped the hon. Baronet would proceed to a division.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid the explanation as to the land tax was more or less satisfactory, but one difficulty was bound to arise, namely, that this method would prevent their getting proper accounts from the Post Office. He was inclined to think the payment of this small amount of land tax by one Department to another might give unnecessary trouble, but he would like to have the opinion of the Attorney-
    1034
    General upon it, as it was rather an important point. He would point out that while the property was being acquired the poor rate was still to be paid, and he wished to know whether that was paid by the Post Office or by the vendor or landlord.
    LORD BALCARRESsaid the Postmaster General settled the contribution to be paid in respect of the rates by Section 133 of the Act of 1845. Composition in lieu of rates he knew existed, because there was a regular Vote on the subject brought before Parliament. But the local authorities who received these sums would much rather have the poor rate assessment on Government buildings than this contribution, and he would like an assurance that the local authorities would not suffer by this subsection. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could give an assurance which would satisfy the local authorities that the income for the rates would not be prejudiced.
    *THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON, Leeds, S.)said the Crown was not liable to be taxed or rated. They, however, made a voluntary contribution in aid. With regard to the poor rate, the Treasury negotiated with the representatives of the union to which the rates were payable, and arrived at a sum which it was thought fair to contribute in lieu of a parochial assessment. That was, he believed, the practice which had now obtained in regard to all public buildings for a number of years.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 1 agreed to.
    Clauses 2 to 5 agreed to.
    Clause 6:—
    SIR F. BANBURY:moved to omit Subsection (1)—
    "The Postmaster-General may divert, alter and stop up any street, roadway, or passage within the limits of any land shown on the deposited plans, so soon as such lands are acquired by him."
    That seemed to him to be an extremely arbitrary provision. In times gone by a great deal of injustice had been done by stopping rights of way all over the

    1035
    country; and there had been a great movement in later years to prevent roadways being blocked up. No one had been more assiduous in supporting movements in this direction than hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, and yet their own Government were now asking for power to divert or stop rights of way. He could not conceive that they would support such a clause, nor that a proposition involving such a policy would be allowed to go through Parliament in any Bill whatever. It must be remembered that this Bill did not apply to sites in rural districts or country places; it applied to London, Chester, Bournemouth, Eastbourne, and Dublin. When they took these towns one saw what a tremendous power this clause gave, and it seemed to him absurd that in a democratic House of Commons the right hon. Gentleman should propose such a clause for acceptance. Even if the clause was to operate only for a certain time he would not accept it; but, for all time the Postmaster-General of the day was to have power to divert or stop rights of way. Why should they give the right hon. Gentleman such a power? There seemed to be an idea that an official had some prescriptive right to do what nobody else was allowed to do. That was not his idea of the manner in which the affairs of the country ought to be conducted. Therefore he moved the omission of the subsection and he hoped he would have the support of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway in his endeavour to secure the lights of the people.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 4, line 30, to leave out Sub section 1."—(Sir F Banbury.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
    *MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he hoped, as on the previous Amendment, that the hon. Baronet would be persuaded to withdraw his proposal. The position was this, that if there was a well known right of way over a site acquired, it was put into the Bill, so that the House might have an opportunity of considering whether the Crown ought to be allowed to block a well-known
    1036
    and recognised right of way. In the process of building there was nothing to prevent anyone complaining if a right of way was interfered with. But this provision was inserted to guard against contingencies which might involve years of litigation. There was no desire whatever on the part of the Post Office to stop recognised rights of way with out compensation, and he entirely sympathised with what the hon. Baronet had said in that regard. It was necessary, however, to have some provision of this sort in order to prevent proceedings being undertaken probably by some cantankerous person.
    LORD BALCARRESsaid in this matter the Postmaster-General seemed to be afraid of some cantankerous individual, but whether he was cantankerous or not he had the right to protest against any right of way being shut up. What was the use of the Postmaster-General's promise to consider the matter, or his guarantee? They did not want that, because when the Bill was passed the right hon. Gentleman would have no power, and no amount of consideration by the right hon. Gentleman could affect the question. It had been said that if in the opinion of the Post Office there had been any rights of way they would have been shown in the schedule. He knew of one instance, at least, where such rights did exist. He could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman in one breath assured the House of his sympathy in maintaining such rights and in the next breath put into a Bill a clause which gave the Government power to close up all these rights of way. He could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman should be desirous of taking powers to override these public privileges. The opposition to the Amendment had been put upon a wrong basis when it was argued that it would cause delay in the erection of a public building. Of course it would, and delay would be quite right if a public right was being destroyed. Unless more solid reasons were given for maintaining this clause he should support the Amendment if it was pressed to a division.
    *MR. CLAVELL SALTERsaid it appeared to

    1037
    him from the statement made by the Postmaster-General that the words of this clause were exceedingly ill-chosen. If the only desire was that no cantankerous individual should be heard why was it necessary to give the Postmaster-General power to divert, alter, and stop up any street? Upon the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman alone this subsection was either superfluous or oppressive. Either these public rights of way existed or they did not. He objected to these general powers being given to the Postmaster-General. Should it be necessary to stop up public rights of way, let it be done in each case by Act of Parliament after a public inquiry. If that were done the public could come forward and establish the right of the King's subjects to pass down a certain passage or street; but the effect of passing this subsection would be that the right hon. Gentleman would have power by statute to do away with any such public rights. Parliament had always been exceedingly jealous about public rights of way. He protested against granting the Postmaster-General any powers to shut up public highways which might or might not exist. When they shut up the rights of way belonging to a private individual there was not the same danger, because he could recover compensation, but they could not compensate the public for the loss of such rights. He hoped this question would be very seriously considered, because it raised a question of principle of great importance.
    MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid the Government had seriously encroached upon the rights of the House of Commons. By this arbitrary and tyrannical clause they proposed to encroach upon the rights of the people themselves. They had been told that these words were put into the Bill to secure the position of this Department during building operations, but there was not one word about building operations in the clause.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONpointed out that the clause appeared in previous Sites Bills passed by the late Unionist Government. It was intended for the protection of the Crown, and would not, of course, be used in a tyrannical manner. It was absolutely necessary that the clause should be retained.
    MR. FELLsaid that post offices were generally erected at central places where time was of the greatest value, and it was not desirable that under the powers proposed to be taken short cuts and rights of way should be closed, and inconvenience thereby caused to the public. He had in his mind a short cut into Lombard Street in the City which was used every day by thousands of people. If the Post Office authorities bought the Land on the other side of that narrow passage and put up buildings, chat way would be closed, and a large number of people would have to go round about. That was one of the reasons why the Post Office should not be granted these extraordinary powers. Where streets or rights of way were acquired, and gas mains and electric cables interfered with, compensation would have to be paid, but even when compensation had been paid the disturbing of their arrangements in densely populated parts might be a very serious matter to the companies, and therefore the Committee should take the greatest care in granting powers to the Post Office.
    MR. CARLILEsaid that Southgate, between Middlesex and Hertfordshire, was one of the districts which would be affected by the subsection. As the representative of the district he protested against this arbitrary clause. The right hon Gentleman had stated that it was in other Bills in regard to sites; but that was no reason for retaining it here. If injustice had been done before, that was a reason why the same form of injustice should not be continued now. The right hon. Gentleman had argued for the retention of the subsection on the ground that it would not be administered in an arbitrary way. But the right hon. Gentleman would not always be the head of the Post Office, and the administration of the Bill, when it became law, might fall to others who would act in an arbitrary way. It was not un-reasonable, therefore, to ask that the sub-section should be removed. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman meet the hon. Baronet who moved the Amendment by agreeing to a modification which would limit the operation of the subsection to a certain period? If the Postmaster-General would agree to lay a schedule on the Table, they would really know what they

    1039
    were doing. He objected to the interests of districts like Southgate being handed over to any hard-hearted Minister who might occupy the position which the light hon. Gentleman held now.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid he accepted the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that what was now proposed had been done on previous occasions by the Party to which he had the honour to belong. He would point out, however, that it had been done by means of a schedule. Every Party made mistakes, and if his Party had done something with which he disagreed, that was no reason why he should assent to a similar wrong being done now. It was no

    AYES.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Glover, Thomas

    Meagher, Michael

    Allen,A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Menzies, Walter

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Money. L. G. Chiozza

    Asquith,Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Mooney, J. J.

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Gulland, John W.

    Morley, Rt. Hon. John

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Murnaghan, George

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

    Murray, James

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Myer, Horatio

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire,N. E.)

    Nicholls, George

    Beale, W. P.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Nicholson,Charles N.(Doncast'r

    Bennett, E. N.

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Helme, Norval Watson

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Grady, J.

    Boland, John

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Hudson, Walter

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hyde, Clarendon

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Brigg, John

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Price,C.E. (Edinburgh,Central)

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

    Jenkins, J.

    Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford,E.)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea)

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Buxton,Rt.Hn.SydneyCharles

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Byles, William Pollard

    Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Joyce, Michael

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Cherry. Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Rees. J. D.

    Cleland, J. W.

    Kekewich, Sir George

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

    Clough, William

    Kelley. George D.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Clynes, J. R.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Kincaid-Smith, Captain

    Rose, Charles Day

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Crombie, John William

    Lambert, George

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Crooks, William

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Schwann,SirC.E.(Manchester)

    Davies,David (Montgomery Co.

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

    Seddon, J.

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Leese,SirJoseph F.(Accrington)

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

    Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

    Lundon, W.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Elibank, Master of

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Stanley,Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)

    Summerbell, T.

    Gardner, Col.Alan (Hereford.S.

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal,E.)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Gilhooly, James

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Torrance, Sir A. M.

    Gladstone,Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

    M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Toulmin, George

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Verney, F. W.

    answer to say, as the right hon. Gentle-man had done, that because the Unionist Party did something it must be right. The argument generally advanced on the other side of the House was that because the Unionist Government had done something it must, there-fore", be wrong. He once more appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment. He did not think that officials, however efficient they might be, should be entrusted with the powers asked under this Bill.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 153; Noes, 26. (Division List No. 292.)

    AYES.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Glover, Thomas

    Meagher, Michael

    Allen,A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Menzies, Walter

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Money. L. G. Chiozza

    Asquith,Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Mooney, J. J.

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Gulland, John W.

    Morley, Rt. Hon. John

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Murnaghan, George

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

    Murray, James

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Myer, Horatio

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire,N. E.)

    Nicholls, George

    Beale, W. P.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Nicholson,Charles N.(Doncast'r

    Bennett, E. N.

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Helme, Norval Watson

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Grady, J.

    Boland, John

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Hudson, Walter

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hyde, Clarendon

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Brigg, John

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Price,C.E. (Edinburgh,Central)

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

    Jenkins, J.

    Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford,E.)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea)

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Buxton,Rt.Hn.SydneyCharles

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Byles, William Pollard

    Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Joyce, Michael

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Cherry. Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Rees. J. D.

    Cleland, J. W.

    Kekewich, Sir George

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

    Clough, William

    Kelley. George D.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Clynes, J. R.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Kincaid-Smith, Captain

    Rose, Charles Day

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Crombie, John William

    Lambert, George

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Crooks, William

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Schwann,SirC.E.(Manchester)

    Davies,David (Montgomery Co.

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

    Seddon, J.

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Leese,SirJoseph F.(Accrington)

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

    Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

    Lundon, W.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Elibank, Master of

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Stanley,Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)

    Summerbell, T.

    Gardner, Col.Alan (Hereford.S.

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal,E.)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Gilhooly, James

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Torrance, Sir A. M.

    Gladstone,Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

    M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Toulmin, George

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Verney, F. W.

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Young, Samuel

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

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

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

    Wardle, George J.

    White, Luke (York, E.R.)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    White,Patrick (Meath, North)

    Wason,Rt.Hn.E.(Clackmannan

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    NOES.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

    Forster, Henry William

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Balearres, Lord

    Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

    Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Barbury, Sir Frederick George

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Cavendish,Rt.Hn. Victor C. W.

    Pease,HerbertPike (Darlington

    Younger, George

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr Gretton and Mr. Liddell.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Fell, Arthur

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    MR. GRETTON:moved to omit Subsection (2). The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he thought there were no rights of way over the sites scheduled in the Bill, but ho happened to be one of the governors of Christ's Hospital, one of the sites included in the Bill, and so far as he knew it had always been the opinion of the governors that there were certain rights of way over that property which were used by the public, as well as one or two private rights of user. It therefore appeared that the matter was one which required some further investigation. Another point raised by the subsection was the question of pipes and drains affecting general rights of easement. It was a serious thing to do away with old rights of easement. In the two following subsections the Postmaster-General took power to regrant them or to make payments, but it was entirely within his discretion, and whilst they, of course, had entire confidence in the present occupant of the office, it was not reasonable to trust entirely to a public official. These matters would really have to be dealt with by the Post Office officials, for they would never specially come before the Postmaster-General unless some serious objection was raised, and there was a very serious objection to granting to public officials the right to stop up and divert pipes, sewers, and drains connected with important and complicated sites, particularly in the City of London. Legal opinion was really very little better than lay opinion, so diverse had been the decisions of different Judges. This confiscation of the rights of ease-
    1042
    ment included the rights of light and air — a very important matter in a congested place like the City of London. The buildings which might be erected under the subsection would seriously affect large and considerable sums. It therefore appeared to him that these powers should not be granted to the Postmaster-General unless he could give some further and more satisfactory explanation as to why he required them, and particularly the power to stop up rights of ways.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 4, line 34, to leave out Subsection (2)."—(Mr. Gretton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the sub-section was inserted in the Bill so that the Crown should have the right of seeing that the public interest in the purchase of the sites and in the buildings to be erected upon them was not jeopardised. There was no intention of dealing harshly with the questions of easement and other rights. The clause was one which appeared in all previous Acts, and it was really necessary for the effective purchase and the carrying out of these public buildings. He hoped under these circumstances the hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment.
    MR. FORSTERsaid there was one question which the right hon. Gentleman had not dealt with, and that was the question of the rights of way,

    1043
    in regard to which his hon. friend had raised the specific case of the Christ's Hospital site. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell them what he proposed to do in reference to that particular site?
    *MR. CLAVELL SALTERsaid he should not be disposed to support the Amendment if it objected to the acquisition by the Post-master-General of private rights of way, but the subsection was extremely ambiguous. It proposed to vest in the Post-master-General private and public rights. What public right would become vested in him under the subsection? Perhaps he would also tell them to whom compensation would be paid for the acquisition of public rights.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid there might be some rights in the possession of some local authority, but he did not anticipate that any question of compensation would arise.
    MR. FELLsaid he supposed the Post-master-General would have to undertake the upkeep of the sewers and drains which he acquired and thus relieve the local authorities. It was perfectly true the present Postmaster-General was exceedingly conciliatory, and would doubtless do everything possible to make things work smoothly, but there had been Post-masters-General in the past who had not been very conciliatory. In many cases rights as regarded light and air were affected by the immense height of post office buildings, and while they would always be disposed to trust the present Postmaster-General, they might not always have him in office. He thought, therefore, they ought to secure these rights in the future. He also asked what would become of the drains under the roads affected.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONthought the hon. Member was pretty safe, for although the tenure of office of the Government was no doubt very precarious according to hon. Gentlemen opposite, still he considered that they would remain in office a few months longer, and there was still a large number of Members of the Opposition to look after them. Various public authorities had consider-able interest in drains, and he did not
    1044
    think the hon. Gentleman could anticipate that the Post Office would do anything to interfere with the rights of the public.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid the only question in which his constituents were interested was that of light, and the difficulties in regard to it arose from the height of Post Office buildings. It was a very serious thing in the City of London if the rights in regard to light were to be taken away. He asked what powers there were in regard to the right to light in the City of London. The question was most important, because, the City not being a residential quarter, if there was not sufficient light the deprivation rendered offices valueless.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONquite agreed, and said the Post Office had been in communication with the Corporation of London in regard to the rights of light, and he did not think there would be any difficulty in regard to that matter.
    MR. GRETTONsaid that having regard to what had taken place he did not think it wise to press this Amendment to a division. He thought that this was a Bill which might have been referred to a Committee upstairs, as it was very suitable for investigation by a Private Bill Committee.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the Bill had already been before a Committee upstairs. It occupied the very exceptional position that it had gone to a Committee upstairs and then to a Committee of this House. It would then go to the House of Lords where it would be examined again in detail.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 7:—
    MR. GRETTONsaid he did not want to move the rejection of the clause, but he wanted to know why the rights and jurisdiction of the London County Council and of the citizens of London were specially preserved under the Bill, while no powers were taken to preserve the rights of the citizens of Middlesex, Hertford, and Northampton.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONreplied that in the case of the borough councils their rights were preserved, and as far as ho recollected the right of county councils outside London were also preserved.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
    Clause 10:—
    SIR F. BANBURY:moved the omission of Subsection (2). Subsection (1) was an extremely good subsection. It provided that no purchase should be made by the Postmaster-General under the authority of this Act without the sanction of the Treasury. That was a most excellent sub-section, and one of which all on that side of the House would approve. He was sorry to say, however, that the next subsection of which he was moving the omission absolutely contradicted it, because it said that any such sanction might be given either generally or in respect of any particular purchase. The meaning of that as ho read it was that the Post-master-General might, go to the Treasury, and exercising his blandishments over the Secretary to the Treasury, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, get him to agree to give him any powers which he desired. Supposing the Postmaster-General said that he wanted,£20,000, the Treasury might say that was a reasonable sum, and grant it; but unless this particular subsection was omitted it appeared to him that any sum of money might be given by the Post Office for any particular site for a post office. If the Committee were going to enact that sort of thing they might as well leave out the clause altogether, and not require the Post Office to ask for the sanction of the Treasury. If the sanction of the Treasury was to be of any use it should have some reality, and he did not see any point in this subsection unless it was intended to deceive the House. He did not think that was intended by the right hon. Gentleman,
    but it seemed to him that it destroyed the effect of the clause. He begged to move.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 6, line 10, to leave out Sub-section (2)."—(Sir F. Banbury.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the only object of the subsection was to secure that the application of the rate-payers' money should be safeguarded by Treasury sanction being obtained. If the hon. Gentleman had to do what he had had the honour of doing for the last eighteen months, he would know that the Treasury were not open to any blandishments. He might take it that this subsection would not be used in a manner in any way detrimental to the taxpayer. Its only object was to give elasticity to the working of the clause.
    MR. FELLthought that the hon. Baronet's proposal would safeguard the public from any general sanction being obtained from the Treasury in order to enable the Post Office to make general purchases in the course of the year. To give the Postmaster-General a general power was to give him an authority which was extremely great, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman should be compelled to go to the Treasury and give them particulars of what he wanted. He suggested the omission of the word "generally."
    SIR F. BANBURYdid not think that the omission of the word "generally" would have the effect he desired.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 164; Noes, 25. (Division List No. 293

    AYES.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Barry,Redmond J.(Tyrone, N

    Branch, James

    Allen,A.Acland(Christchurch)

    Beale, W. P.

    Brigg, John

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Bennett, E. N.

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

    Asquith,Rt.Hn. Herbert Henry

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Burns, Rt. Hn. John

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Buxton,Rt. Hn.SydneyCharles

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Bottomley, Horatio

    Byles, William Pollard

    Barnes, G. N.

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Cleland, J. W.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

    Clough, William

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Clynes,J. R.

    Lambert, George

    Robertson, SirG. Scott (Bradf'rd)

    Collins, Stephen Lambeth,

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Collins SirWm. J.(S. Pancras W

    Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington

    Rose, Charles Day

    Corbett, CH(Sussex, EGrinst'd

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Rutherford, J. H. (Brentford)

    Crean, Eugene

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Samuel,Herbert L.(Cleveland)

    Crooks, William

    Lundon, W.

    Schwann,C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh,S.)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Schwann,SirC. E (Manchester)

    Dickinson,W. H.(St.PancrasN

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Seddon, j.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

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

    Duncan,C.(Barrow-in-Furness

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Elibank, Master of

    MacVeighCharles(Donegal,E)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrina,S.)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Farrell, James Patrick

    McKillop, W.

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Maddison, Frederick

    Stanley,Hn.A. Lyulph (Chesh.

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Gardner,Col.Alan(Hereford,S.

    Meagher, Michael

    Strauss, B. S. (Mile End)

    Gilhooly, James

    Menzies, Walter

    Summerbell, T.

    Gladstone,RtHnHerbertJohn

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Montagu, E. S.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Mooney, J. J.

    Torrance, Sir A. M.

    Grant, Corrie

    Morley, Rt. Hon. John

    Toulmin, George

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Murnaghan. George

    Verney, F. W.

    Gulland, John W.

    Murray, James

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Myers, Horaio

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

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Napier, T. B.

    Wardle, George J.

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire,NE.

    Nicholls, George

    Warner, Thomas CourtenayT.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Nicholson,CharlesN. (Doncast'r

    Wason.RtHnE. (Clackmannan

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Wason,John Cathcart(Orkney

    Helme, Norval Watson

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Hobart, Sir Robert

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

    White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

    Hodge, John

    O'Graly, J.

    White, Luke (York, E.R.)

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    White, Patrick(Meath, North)

    Hudson, Walter

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Pearson,Sir W. D. (Colchester)

    Whitley,John Henry(Halifax)

    Jenkins, J.

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

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rthn

    Jones,Sir D.Brynmor(Swansea

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Wilson, HenryJ. (York,W.R)

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

    Wilson, P. W (St. PancrasS.)

    JonesWilliam(Carnarvonshire

    Priestley,W. E. B. (Bradford

    Wilson,W.T. (Westhoughton)

    Joyce, Michael

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Young, Samuel

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

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

    Kelly, George D.

    Redmond, William(Clare)

    Kincaid-Smith, Captain

    Rees, J. D.

    NOES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Forster, Henry William

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

    Gardner,Ernest (Berks, East)

    Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gretton, John

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Harris, Fredrick Leverton

    Valentia, Viscount

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Liddell, Henry

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Cavendish,Rt. Hon. VictorC. W.

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Corlett, A.Cameron (Glasgow)

    PeaseHerbertPike(Darlington

    TELLERS FOE THE NOES—Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. Fell.

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
    On the Question that the Bill be reported without Amendment to the House,
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid he did not wish to divide the House on the Question which had been put from the Chair,
    1048
    but he wanted to express the regret which was felt on that side of the House at the refusal of the Postmaster-General to accept the Amendments which they had moved in the most conciliatory manner. They had done their best to facilitate and to assist the passage of the Bill through the House, and he thought they might have been met by the right

    1049
    hon. Gentleman on the very small but important Amendments which they had proposed. If they had been accepted they would not have interfered with the carrying out of the Bill or with its object. Of course, the measure would have to be considered on another stage, but then he supposed in all probability nothing would be done to meet them. With regard to the Bill itself—
    *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that the only Question before the House was the Motion to report the Bill without amendment to the House, and the hon. Member was not in order in rediscussing the Bill.
    SIR F. BANBURYasked whether it was not in order on the Motion to report the Bill to express an opinion on the Bill itself.
    *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid it would not be in order. It would only be in order to ask a question, or to give some special reason why the Bill should not be reported.
    Bill reported without Amendment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time.''
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid it would now be in order to put forward the arguments he had attempted to address to the Committee a few moments previously. Ho regretted very much that the Amendment moved on Clause G was not accepted, because he thought it was wrong that public rights of way should not be safe guarded on the usual lines. At the present time attempts were being made to alter the law with regard to public rights of way and to make it more difficult than at present to abolish them. Ho did not see why a Government Department without recourse to law should be allowed to close streets and public road ways in the way proposed by this Bill.

    CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL.
    As amended (by the Standing Committee considered.
    *MR. CLAVELL SALTER:moved a new clause with regard to the summary determination of appeals, and he earnestly hoped the Government would favourably consider it. It was a clause which he thought would have a practical bearing in making the new Court more flexible and convenient and less cumbrous and expensive. Some Members had voted against a Court of Criminal Appeal, but the House having decided that there should be such a Court, these who had voted against it now only desired to make it as convenient and sucecessful as possible. It was no doubt necessary that these criminal appeals should be left in the discretion of the Court of Appeal, but at the same time there could be no doubt that the necessity for two separate hearings in the case of every criminal appeal would add greatly to the total expense and delay. The person convicted would have to go through two proceedings for redress. He would first of all have to go to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal, and the appeal if allowed would be heard some time later. The Court would be working from two lists— one, a long list, for leave to appeal, and the other, a shorter list, dealing with the appeals themselves. power was given under this Bill to make the application for leave to appeal to a single member of the Court sitting in Chambers for that purpose. If the Judge refused leave, then the person convicted was entitled to have his application reheard in full Court Such an appeal would be a long one if a man came before the Court and said his sentence was excessive, and still longer if he said his sentence was unjust. Counsel would refer to voluminous shorthand notes and the appeal would take the greater part of the day, at any rate it would be a long and costly business. Let the House imagine what would happen. A man appealed against his sentence on the ground that it was excessive. Counsel for both sides would come before the Court. Counsel for the convicted man would allege that his client had received an excessive sentence. He would then go through the history of the case, which would take some time, and then it would be the novel, invidious, and repulsive duty of the opposing counsel to insist upon the adequacy of the sentence and to call attention to all the matters he could to aggravate the case. After an hour or two of the time of the

    1051
    Court had been taken up, the Judges, it might be, would come to the conclusion that the sentence was excessive. Under these circumstances the Court had only one course to pursue—namely, to state to the counsel fur the convicted man that he had made out a prima facie case and give the man leave to appeal against the sentence, in which case the counsel would come back in about two months time and go through the matter all over again. The object of the clause he now moved was to give the Court the right to say in such a case, "Not only do we give you leave to appeal, but we shall treat this application for leave as the substantive appeal." The Court which had come to the conclusion that the sentence was excessive would obviously have come to a conclusion as to what sentence ought to be given, and all this clause did was to give them power to dispose of the whole thing at once. In that way he thought that the clause would operate with great public convenience and save expenditure. It would also operate in the case of appeals against the conviction on the ground that it was unjust. In that case if the Court came to the conclusion that the sentence was not satisfactory, it would be a great convenience to allow them to say so and to order the case to be tried again at the next Assizes. He begged to move.
    *SIR WILLIAM ANSON:seconded the new clause. He said it was an unfortunate feature of this Bill that all its stages had been taken at morning sittings, although the Attorney-General had been understood to say that the Report stage should not be taken at a morning sitting.
    SIR JOHN WALTONsaid that he promised to do his best to consider the convenience of Members belonging to the legal profession. He made representations to these who arranged the business of the House. but it was found impossible to take the Bill at any other time.
    *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that it was unfortunate, seeing how this Bill interested the members of the legal profession, who were unable to be present at morning sittings. To that extent the House was deprived of the full criticism which such a Bill as this ought to receive.
    1052
    He believed that the Attorney-General had under-estimated the amount of business that would be thrown on the Court of Appeal, owing to the large number of very small cases that would be brought forward. He appeared to assume that only large cases involving novel or great questions of criminal law or unusual questions of fact would come before this Court, but criminals of every sort would appeal against sentences, especially as the cost would be provided for them. In a great number of the cases which came before the Court the appeal might be allowed after full inquiry, and then the matter might be postponed for two or three months and have to be gone into all over again. Surely in matters of that kind the Judges could be trusted to deal with the cases which could be disposed of at once. Why was it that the Judge was not allowed to have this discretion, especially having regard to the possible block of business arising from the number of cases which would come before the Committee? Then, again, what was to happen in the interval between the leave to appeal given and the time when the appeal took place to the person who was appealing against his conviction and sentence? He hoped if this clause was not accepted some good reason would be given for it.
    New clause—
    "On the hearing of any application for leave 10 appeal the Court of Criminal Appeal may, if they think lit, deal with the matter as though such application were an appeal under this Act."—(Mr. Salter.)
    Brought up, and read a first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
    *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid that his hon. and learned friend was under a slight misapprehension as to the procedure which would be adopted in order to give effect to this portion of the Bill The motion for leave to appeal would be an ex parte motion made by a convicted person. In other words, it was proposed to revive the procedure of obtaining a rule nisi for a new trial. The appellant would have to satisfy the Court that there were very substantial grounds for setting aside the verdict, and he would have the advantage of doing that ex parte and without the presence of the prosecution. It was important that this step

    1053
    should be made as economical as possible, and unless there was some point proposed to be raised worth arguing it seemed to him to be unnecessary to burden the Exchequer with the cost of briefing counsel for the prosecution in order that they might attend when there was in reality nothing for them to answer. If the Court thought that there was no real ground for the appeal they would dismiss it; if, on the other hand, they felt some difficulty in supporting the conviction they might be glad to hoar what the prosecution had to say. In these circumstances the Court would have, where it was necessary, both parties present. Pro vision was made against frivolous appeals on questions of law only, because if an application for leave to appeal came before the Registrar, and he thought that it was frivolous, he could say that there was no substantial grounds whatever for it, and then a summary determination would be arrived at.
    *MR. CAVEcomplained of the inconvenience of such a Bill as this being discussed at a morning sitting and pointed out that it was really impossible for professional men to attend at the House at such a time. He hoped his hon. friend would not insist on this new clause, because if it was the fact that these applications for leave were to be heard ex parte it obviously would not be right to dispose of the appeal itself in the way suggested in the clause. If the Court thought it was a vexatious or frivolous appeal they would dispose of it by refusing leave to appeal, but if they thought there was something in the case it would not be right that they should grant relief without hearing counsel for the prosecution and satisfying themselves that the prima facie case made upon the application for leave to appeal could be maintained.
    *MR. REESsaid he did not know whether the person applying for leave to appeal would be satisfied with the decision of a Registrar. He thought appellants might insist upon a practice similar to that which existed in one of the High Courts of India, in the
    1054
    Registrar's office of which he had served, namely, to bring the case before a Judge sitting as an admission court whereby real courts, hearings and appeals would result. He had gathered that it would be permissible to some extent to discuss the principle of the Bill on this Amendment. If that were so it would be on Clause 1, Sub-section 1, and for his part he would say that this Bill was unnecessary in so far as it was designed to relieve the Home Secretary of his function of advising in the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. If the Home Secretary asked, as he always did, and followed the advice of the Judge who tried the case, his task and his responsibility would be lightened. It had been his own duty when British Resident at the Courts of Native Princes to exercise this function, and he believed, that upon the advice of the trying Judge it could be properly exercised, and out side pressure avoided or disregarded.
    *MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Gentle man had mistaken the question. The question was that the now clause be read a second time, and upon that question the hon. Gentleman could not take the opportunity to discuss the principle of the Bill on Clause 1.
    VISCOUNT TURNOURmoved the adjournment of the debate on the ground that although no one doubted the good faith of the Attorney - General, it was un doubtedly the fact that it was under stood by hon. Gentlemen with whom he sat that this stage of the Bill would not be taken at a morning sitting. The Bill was of great importance to the general public and the legal professior There were many legal Gentlemen who sat on his side of the House unable to be present. Believing that the Bill was not to be taken, they had made other arrangements. He did not think his hon. and learned friends should be pre vented from taking part in the debate owing to an unfortunate misunderstanding. He begged to move.
    MR. CARLILE:formally seconded the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the debate be now adjourned."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 28; Noes, 173. (Division List No. 294.)

    AYES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Du Cros, Harvey

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Balcarres, Lord

    Forster, Henry William

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Hardy,Laurence (Kent,Ashf'rd

    Valentia, Viscount

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Cave, George

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Younger, George

    Cavendish,Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Viscount Turnour and Mr. Carlile.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Liddell, Henry

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

    NOES.

    Abraham,William (Cork, N.E.)

    Gill, A. H.

    Massie, J.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Gladstone,Rt.Hn Herbert John

    Meagher, Michael

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Menzies, Walter

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Mooney, J. J.

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Grant, Corrie

    Morley, Rt. Hon. John

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Morton,Alphcus Cleophas

    Barnes, G. N.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Murnaghan, George

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Halpin, J.

    Murray, James

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Myer, Horatio

    Beale, W. P.

    Harvey,W.E.(Derbyshire, N.E,

    Napier, T. B.

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Nicholls, George

    Bennett, E. N.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r)

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex,Maldon)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Nolan, Joseph

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Hazleton, Richard

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Black, Arthur W.

    Helme, Norval Watson

    O'Brien,Kendal (TipperaryMid

    Boland, John

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Bottomley, Horatio

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

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

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hodge, John

    O'Grady, J.

    Branch, James

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Malley, William

    Brigg, John

    Hudson, Walter

    Parker, James (Halifax;)

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

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Philipps,Col.Ivor (S'thampton)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jenkins, J.

    Pickersgrill, Edward Hare

    Byles, William Pollard

    Jones,Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea)

    Pollard,Dr.

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Churchill Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Clynes, J. R.

    Joyce, Michael

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Redmond, William (Clare)

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

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Renton, Major Leslie

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Kelley, George D.

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

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

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Kincaid-Smith, Captain

    Robertson,Sir G.Scott(Bradf'rd

    Cox, Harold

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Lambert, George

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Crooks, William

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

    Runciman, Walter

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

    Lundon, W.

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Schwann, C.Duncan (Hyde)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Schwann,Sir C.E. (Manchester)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Seddon, J.

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

    Elibank, Master of

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Erskine, David C.

    MacVeagh,Jeremiah (Down,S.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim,S.)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal,E.)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Farrell, James Patrick

    M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    M'Killop, W.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Maddison, Frederick

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Gilhooly, James

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Strauss E. A. (Abingdon)

    Summerbell, T.

    Wason,RtHn.E. (Clackmannan

    Williams,Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

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

    Torrance, Sir A.M.

    Waterlow, D. S.

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

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Watt, Henry A.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Verney, F. W.

    White, J.D. (Dumbartonshire)

    Young, Samuel

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    White, Luke (York, E.R.)

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

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

    White, Patrick (meath, North)

    Wardle, George J.

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay, T.

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Original Question pub, and negatived.
    *MR. CAVEsaid he desired to move the new clause standing in his name to postpone the operation of the Bill until not less than three additional Judges had been appointed to the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice.
    *SIR JOHN WALTONasked whether it was in order to move to postpone the operation of an Act without stating it definite period in which it should come into force.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid he could not say it was out of order; he thought the hon. Gentleman was entitled to move.
    *MR. CAVEsaid that if it were not in his opinion important he would not press it. They were all agreed that the King's Bench Division was undermanned, and although the House had agreed last week to the appointment of one new Judge, everyone admitted that that was not enough for the work the Division now had to do. This Bill would add a very large amount of work. There were some 12,000 convictions on indictment in the course of a year, and the probable number of appeals could not be put at less than 2,000 or 3,000. In order to hear these appeals at least three Judges would have to be taken away from their ordinary work for the greater part of the year, and no provision had been made for that contingency. He submitted that before the Bill came into operation some provision should be made to cope with this additional work, and he hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman would tell the House how it was proposed to cope with it. Unless he had some definite promise that something would be done to meet this obvious need he should press his Motion.
    SIR F. BANBURY:seconded the Amendment. He was perfectly sure I that his hon. friend would not desire the appointment of three additional Judges unless their appointment was necessary. He was anxious, if they were to have a new Court of Appeal, to get that Court properly conducted. A short time ago there were not enough Judges to carry on the ordinary business, and if they were to have a new Court it would appear to be necessary to have additional Judges.
    New clause—
    "Notwithstanding anything herein contained this Act shall not take effect unless and until an Act shall have been passed authorising the appointment by His Majesty of not less than three additional Judges of the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice."—(Mr. Cave.)
    Brought up, and read a first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
    *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid it was difficult at this stage to fix the number of Judges, as they did not know what would be the result of this legislation, whether the appeals by prisoners would be few or many; they could not anticipate with any degree of certainty one way or the other. Further, it could not be seen to what extent it would be necessary to increase the judicial staff until a redistribution of the business of the Courts had been effected in the King's Bench Division and the Court of Appeal. A committee was now considering the subject, and it was quite possible that a portion of the business of the King's Bench would be transferred to a third division of the Court of Appeal. If that change should be effected, the existing staff of the Kings Bench Division should be able to undertake the work which would be created if this legislation were carried. In these circumstances he

    1059
    thought it was impossible to do more than to ask the House to content them selves for the present with the appointment of one additional Judge.
    MR. CARLILE,speaking with afl diffidence as a layman, said the Attorney-General had told them distinctly the other day that the average of arrears when the Courts rose for the Long Vacation was at least 600 cases, and he did not see how the transference-of work from one Court to another would diminish arrears—especially when the Court of Criminal Appeal was established—without an increase of the number of Judges. The Attorney-General had recently proposed the appointment of one additional Judge, but there was a division of opinion as to whether the number ought not to be three, in view of the great glut of work already existing, and the increase of work which must be caused by the Court of Criminal Appeal.
    MR. F. E. SMITHpointed out that if the clause were adopted the Government would be deprived of the opportunity of judging what addition to the judicial staff would be rendered necessary by the establishment of a Court of Criminal Appeal. What the Government wished to ascertain was what additions would be necessary after this Bill had come into operation. As he understood, the intention of the Government had been declared un equivocally that such additions would be made to the judicial staff as might be rendered necessary by the state of business after the Court of Criminal Appeal had been established. With that assurance, further discussion would be useless.
    Question put, and negatived.
    SIR JOHN WALTONmoved to leave out the word "seven" and insert the word "eight" in Clause 1. He had, he said, given a pledge in Committee to increase by one the number of Judges on the panel for the proposed Court of Criminal Appeal.
    Amendment proposed to the Bill—
    "In page 1, line 7, to leave out the word 'seven' and insert the word 'eight.'"—(Sir John Walton.)
    Question proposed that the word "seven" stand part of the Bill.
    *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he did not think that this proposal was what some of them had contended for in Committee. There were times when a great many Judges would be absent on circuit and it would be extremely difficult and inconvenient to make up the Court if any particular group of Judges was required to sit constantly in London. As they were considerably increasing the business of the Court, and they declined to appoint more than one additional Judge, it would be better to leave the Lord Chief Justice power to draw upon the whole resources of the King's Bench Division, and from time to time to constitute the Court with such Judges as it might be convenient to summon. While the substitution of eight for seven was a great improvement, the Lord Chief Justice making the ninth, and so enabling three Courts to be set up, he thought it would be preferable to accept the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for the University of Cam bridge, to leave it open to the Lord Chief Justice to summon such judges as could be summoned with least inconvenience to the course of public business. He suggested that the Attorney-General should drop the word "eight" and insert the word "the," as proposed by his hon. and learned friend the Member for the University of Cambridge.
    *MR. CLAVELL SALTERsaid the proposal of the Attorney-General was that there should be a panel of eight from which the Lord Chief Justice was to select three Judges for the Court of Criminal Appeal, whereas the Amendment of his hon. and learned friend the Member for Cambridge University was that the Lord Chief Justice should be left free to select three from among any of the King's Bench Judges. They all desired to get the most suitable men for this Court, and they might be very sure that the most suitable men available would always be selected by the Lord Chief Justice. He thought it would be very undesirable to make changes in the composition of the Court, and that it would be most desirable to keep continuity of personnel. The Judges appointed to the-Court of Criminal Appeal would not be

    1061
    available for circuit work, at any rate for a long time. He thought the hands of the Lord Chief Justice should be left as free as possible in the making of arrangements already difficult to accomplish. It was suggested that some Judges were suitable for one class of work and some for another, but he could not see why a Judge who was fit to go on circuit should not be fit to sit in the Court of Criminal Appeal. But that was a minor matter. The major matter was that the choice of the Lord Chief Justice of Judges for the Criminal Appeal Court should be free and not limited to eight.
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR JOHN WALTONmoved an Amendment to Subsection (4) of Clause 1, which provides that any question before the Court of Criminal Appeal should be decided by a majority of the Judges, but that there should be only one judgment delivered. The Amendment was to the effect that this provision should be modified where there was a question of law on which it would be convenient that there should be separate judgments by the members of the Court. The Government, he said, had maintained in Committee that the practice of the Privy Council to have no minority judgment should be followed in criminal matters, so that the executive, in the execution of a sentence, should have the full support of the tribunal. It had been pointed out, however, that questions of law might occasionally arise in reference to which it would be desirable to have the view of a minority of the Bench having regard to the possible necessity for further legislation. This argument had convinced him, and he thought it might be consistent with the general rule of the section if an exception were created in these cases referred to in the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed to the Bill—
    "In page 2, line 1, to leave out the word 'and, 'and insert' (5) Unless the Court direct to the contrary in cases where, in the opinion of the Court, the question is a question of law on which it would be convenient that separate judgments should be pronounced by the members of the Court.'"—(Sir John Walton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'and' stand part of:he Bill."
    *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he had a similar Amendment on the Paper, but he thought the Attorney-General's proposal better answered the object he had in view, and they were grateful to the Government for having introduced it. As the Bill was first drafted the practice of the Privy Council was to be followed, and no dissentient judgment pronounced, but the Privy Council had the power, and sometimes under careful restrictions exercised it, of departing from its own previous decisions, or modifying them; that was maintained by very high authority in various decisions. In regard to the Court of Criminal Appeal, if there was a dissentient judgment which might point to the necessity of legislation, it would be unfortunate if the judgment was not reported, and an Amendment made in the criminal law where necessary.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
    *SIR JOHN WALTON:next moved to insert a new subsection, "If in any case the prosecutor or defendant obtains the certificate of the Attorney-General that a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal involves a point of law of exceptional public importance, he may appeal from that decision to the House of Lords, but subject thereto." There were cases of the greatest public importance where questions of law might possible arise in the Court of Criminal Appeal which it should be possible to carry to the highest Court of the realm. He quite recognised the importance of securing finality; yet in the cases in question, in order that the law should be authoritatively laid down, so as to carry the greatest weight, not only in the Empire, but throughout the world, it seemed desirable to make some provision for an appeal. It had occurred to him originally that they should allow appeal by the procedure of writ of error, but they might have an error of law of the greatest magnitude which could not form the subject of a writ of error, because it was not apparent on the face of the proceedings, and, there fore, he had come to the conclusion that the best plan was to do away

    1063
    with the institution of the writ of error and to propose this Amendment. Inasmuch as the appeal would be brought in the public interest, care would be taken that no hardship was suffered by an accused person by reason of the appeal. In cases where strong public feeling was excited and jurists were divided in opinion, it was only the judgment of the highest Court of the realm that would be universally accepted. He begged to move.
    Amendment proposed to the Bill—
    "In page 2, line 7, at the beginning, to insert the words, 'If in any case the prosecutor or defendant obtains the certificate of the Attorney-General that a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal involves a point of law of exceptional public importance, he may appeal from that decision to the House of Lords, but subject thereto.'"—(Sir John Walton.)
    Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
    MR. ATHERLEY-JONESthought the House would welcome the Amendment, but he pointed out that this was an entirely new departure with regard to the prerogative of the Attorney-General. It seemed to him that the Court which tried the case and might be divided in opinion upon some very grave point of law should also have power to grant leave to appeal. He suggested that, while reserving his own rights, the Attorney-General should extend these rights to the Court.
    *SIR WILLIAM ANSONwelcomed the Amendment. He did not think it extended the power of the Attorney-General unduly. He understood the object was to limit appeals of this nature to matters of great public importance or juristic interest. This power to give leave to appeal was not inconsistent with other powers which the Attorney-General possessed.
    MR. CAVEthought the fiat of the Attorney-General was the best course to adopt, because it brought a fresh mind to the subject, and he would carefully read the judgment of the Court in cases of this kind. He thought the Executive officer was the proper person to take the necessary step. He wished
    1064
    to point out that the prosecutor in a criminal case was often only a name. Therefore the Director of Public Prosecutions ought to be able to apply for this certificate. He thought it was quite novel to have an appeal direct from the High Court to the House of Lords. The power of the House of Lords to take the opinion of the Judges still existed, and probably in cases of this kind they would take that course. If this Amendment was adopted it would be necessary to provide that the Director of Public Prosecutions should have charge of the proceedings on the part of the prosecution in the House of Lords.
    MR. BEALEsaid it was an old practice to have an appeal straight to the House of Lords, at all events from the First Court in what was then the Court of Chancery. There was no real innovation in the course proposed in this case.
    SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he was pre pared to amend the Amendment so as to give the Director of Public Prosecutions, as well as the prosecutor or defendant, power to obtain the certificate. He would move his Amendment in the following altered form:-"If in any case the Director of Public Prosecutions or the prosecutor or defendant obtains the certificate of the Attorney-General that a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal involves a point of law of exceptional public importance, and that it is desirable in the public interest that an appeal should be brought, he may appeal from that decision to the House of Lords, but subject thereto."
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    MR. BOULTON (Huntingdonshire, Ramsey):moved to insert in Clause 2, after the word "registrar" the words "and deputy registrar" His object was to provide that in the case of the illness or absence of the registrar, the deputy registrar should be able to take his place.
    Amendment proposed to the Bill—
    "In page 2, Hue 23, after the word 'registrar' to insert the words 'and deputy registrar' "—(Mr. Boulton.)
    The Amendment was not seconded.
    Amendment proposed to the Bill—
    "In page 2, line 28, to leave out the word 'Supreme' and to insert the words 'King's Bench Division of the High.'"—(Sir John. Walton.)
    Amendment agreed to
    *SIR WILLIAM ANSONmoved an Amendment to Clause 3 limiting the right of appeal to persons convicted ''of an indictable offence other than an indictable offence triable by summary jurisdiction'' He reminded the Attorney-General that there were a very large number of cases of indictable offences which were triable on summary jurisdiction, but in which the magistrate had to put before the prisoner the option of being dealt with summarily or sent to trial. It would surely be right that the prisoner should be informed that if he chose to go to quarter sessions or assizes he would have a right of appeal against the conviction and sentence. There was also the right of the prisoner, wherever a court of summary jurisdiction could give a sentence of more than three months imprisonment, to claim to go before a jury and have his case treated as an Indictable offence. To allow this great bulk of cases which were now dealt with at the smallest possible expenditure of time to come within the class of cases carrying with them a right to an appeal under this Bill, would overwhelm the Court with work and would bring under the notice of his Majesty's Judges a number of cases which were really unworthy of their consideration. He asked whether an accused person under the circumstances he had described ought not to be informed of the prospect before him if he chose to be tried by quarter sessions. He thought the framers of the Bill had somewhat under-rated the activities of local practitioners. Until the prisoner was convicted, the solicitor would have no particular object in framing the defence with any elaborate subtlety. As soon as the prisoner was convicted there came the opportunity of
    1066
    making out a case for the Court of Appeal. These who moved in criminal circles, or in the neighbourhood of such circles, were not so particular about truth as one would wish, and if they found after a prisoner had been convicted that certain evidence would have been of value to the prisoner at the trial had it been forth coming, persons would be found who would not be deterred by their regard for truth from putting the evidence before the Court of Appeal. To allow the great bulk of cases which were now dealt with at the smallest possible expenditure of time, to come within the class of cases carrying with them a right to an appeal under this Bill, would over whelm the Court with work and would bring under the notice of His Majesty's Judges a number of cases which were really unworthy of their consideration.
    MR. CARLILEseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed to the Bill—
    "In page 2, line 33, to leave out the words 'on indictment,' and insert the words 'of an indictable offence other than an indictable offence triable; by summary jurisdiction.'"— (Sir William Anson).
    Question proposed, "That the words 'on indictment' stand part of the Bill."
    SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the proposal of the hon. Baronet would unduly limit the scope of the Bill. It was not intended to afford any appeal from convictions by summary process. The whole scope of the Bill was to provide an appeal from convictions obtained before a judge, or chairman of quarter sessions, and a jury. It was obvious that a trial before a magistrate or a bench of magistrates was in an entirely different position. There was already a Court of Appeal applicable to such cases. He thought the short answer to this Amendment was that if a case could be tried by a Judge and jury, why should not the result be the subject of

    1067
    appeal? He did not think it would be proper to draw a limiting line such as that proposed, and he hoped his hon. friend would not press the Amendment.
    Question put.
    The House divided—Ayes, 185; Noes, 37. (Division List No. 295.)

    AYES.

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Gladstone, Rt.Hn Herbert John

    O'Brien,Kendal (TipperaryMid

    Agnew, George William

    Glendinning, R. G.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Alden, Percy

    Gooch, George Peabody

    O'Donuell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Grant, Corrie

    O'Grady, J.

    Atherley Jones, L.

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

    Gulland, John W.

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke

    Barker, John

    Halpin, J.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Pollard, Dr.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Harvey,W.E.(Derbyshire, N.E.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Beale, W. P.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Renton, Major Leslie

    Bell, Richard

    Higham, John Sharp

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

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Bennett, E. N.

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon

    Hodge, John

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Hogan, Michael

    Runciman, Walter

    Black, Arthur W.

    Holden, E.Hopkinson

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Boland, John

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Samuel,Herbert L.(Cleveland)

    Bottomley, Horatio

    Hudson, Walter

    Schwann,Sir C.E. (Manchester)

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Bowerman, C W.

    Jenkins, J.

    Seddon, J.

    Branch, James

    Jones,Sir D.Brynmor-(Swansea

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

    Brigg, John

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

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

    Jowett, F. W.

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Burns. Rt. Hon. John

    Joyce, Michael

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim,S.)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Kekewich. Sir George

    Steadman, W. C.

    Causton,Rt.Hn. Richard Knight

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Lambert, George

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Summerbell, T.

    Clarke, C.Goddard (Peckham)

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lewis,John Herbert

    Torrance, Sir A. M.

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

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Toulmin, George

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lundon, W.

    Ure, Alexander

    Cooper, G. J.

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

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

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

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Ward,W. Dudley(Southampton

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Wardle, George J.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Wasner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Cox, Harold

    MacVeagh,Jeremiah (Down, S.

    Wason,RtHn.E(Clackmannan

    Crean, Eugene

    MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal, E.

    Wason,John Cathcart(Orkney)

    Crombie, John William

    M'Killop, W.

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Crooks, William

    M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Maddison, Frederick

    White, J.D. (Dumbartonshire)

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    White, Luke (York, E.R.)

    Dewar, SirJ. A. (Inverness'sh'

    Massie, J.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

    Meagher, Michael

    Whitley,John Henry(Halifax)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Menzies, Walter

    Williams, Llewelyn(Camarth'n

    Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

    Elibank, Master of

    Murnaghan, George

    Wilson,J. H. (Middlesbrnugh)

    Erskine, David C.

    Murray, James

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

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Myer, Horatio

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Young, Samuel

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Nicholls, George

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Nicholson,Charles N.(Doncast'r

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

    Gilhooly, James

    Nolan, Joseph

    Gill, A.H.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    NOES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Fell, Arthur

    Roberts,S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Banbury,Sir Frederick George

    Hardy,Laurence(Kent, Ashford

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Smith,F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Turnour, Viscount

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Liddell, Henry

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Cave, George

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

    Wortley, Rt.Hon. C. B.Stuart

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster.

    Coates,E.Feetham(Lewisham)

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Nicholson, Wm.G.(Petersfield)

    Dixon-Hartland,Sir FredDixon

    Pease,HerbertPike(Darlington

    Motion made and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Lord Balcarres)—put, and agreed to.

    MR. RAWLINSON:moved to leave out sub-section (d), which extends, with the leave of the Court of Criminal Appeal, the right of appeal on grounds other than these of law—that is to say "on any ground of appeal which involves a question of fact alone, or a question of mixed law and fact, or any other ground which appears to the Court to be a sufficient ground of appeal.'' He said this sub-section raised the most important question in the Bill. The opponents of the measure had little objection to allowing the right of appeal on questions of law, It was to the unlimited right of appeal on questions of fact which would be set up by this sub section that the opponents based their objection. Ho ventured to say that the majority of these who had experience of criminal work—Judges, chairmen of quarter sessions, and lawyers who practised in the criminal courts—had come to the conclusion that the Bill, if passed in its present form, would be absolutely unworkable. In the event of the Government not accepting the Amendment to omit this sub-section, he reserved to himself and his friends the right to move Amendments later on with the view to such modifications being made as would do away with the objection they now had to the sub-section. It was proposed that every prisoner should have the right
    1070
    to apply for leave to appeal on matters of fact as well as of law. If a man brought before a Court, say in Cornwall, pleaded not guilty, and after trial was convicted by the jury, he would be more than human if he did not apply for leave to appeal. If he could get leave to appeal, he would lose nothing. There were reasons why a prisoner's friends should assist him to appeal. In the ordinary case which came before quarter sessions a trial might last a whole day, and a full note of the case was to be taken by a shorthand writer. If the Registrar wanted the transcript, that would involve an expense of £5 or £6. Then the solicitor and counsel who conducted the case at the trial might have the right to appear at the expense of the country when the case came before the Court of Appeal. Therefore, there were persons interested in an appeal being lodged. These observations applied to the man who had been wrongfully convicted, and who probably was justified in taking advantages of every means the law allowed him to vindicate his character. But in the case where a prisoner had been rightly convicted, there would be the same right to ask leave to appeal. If that man was ever to go back into the world again, he would be forced to say "I do not acquiesce in the verdict of the jury, I want to go the Court of Appeal.''

    1071
    The result would be that there would be such a glut of business that the Court of Appeal would not be able to get through it unless the work was done in a perfunctory way. If the work was to be done in a perfunctory way, this Bill would be an absolute farce and delusion. They would have 600, 700, or 800 cases at least coming before the Court of Appeal in one year asking for leaves to appeal, and, even if the three Judges sat not less than forty weeks in the year, they would be fully occupied hearing applications. That would make the Bill in its present form a mere delusion, and a farce. Instead of a prisoner getting a better chance, it would be worse for him After he had got leave to appeal, the appeal would have to be heard before the Court, and for the first time in the annals of criminal law they were to have trial by three Judges in substitution for trial by jury. He challenged the Attorney-General to find any precedent for this. Assuming that a jury had convicted a person of one offence, the Court of Appeal could set that sentence aside and find him guilty of another offence of which the jury had not found him guilty. The Court would have power to send for additional evidence, but they could hardly expect them to do so in the majority of cases. This appeal upon facts was said to be for the benefit of the prisoner, but he ventured to submit that it would neither be in his interest nor in the interest of the good administration, of the criminal law. Juries and chairmen of quarter sessions were only human, and, if the Bill were passed, they would know that the final word did not rest with them, and that a prisoner could go to the Court of Appeal; and whereas now they had a keen sense of their responsibility and always gave a prisoner
    1072
    the benefit of any real doubt, they would be inclined to think that if they made a mistake the Judges above would put it right. Of course, a jury would not convict a man simply because he had the right of appeal, but, if they were divided, the fact might change the balance of opinion in favour of his conviction, whilst under the existing law the balance of opinion went in favour of acquittal. He wished to deal with the case of the innocent man wrongly convicted. Such cases were not so frequent as the Press seemed to indicate. He had still confidence in juries at quarter sessions, and he had had considerable opportunity of seeing their work. An innocent man wrongly convicted would apply for leave to appeal, and, if he got it, his case would be heard before three Judges by the same technical rules of evidence as the Court below. Supposing they upheld the conviction, or supposing leave to appeal was refused, he would have power to apply to the Home Secretary. Would not this procedure, however, considerably weaken not only the position of the Home Secretary, but also the chances of the prisoner of receiving money as well as justice at the hands of the Secretary of State? It would be a strong thing if the Secretary of State intervened in a case before the man had exhausted all the proper legal remedies afforded him. Surely it would be practically impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to intervene where a prisoner had not been to the Court of Appeal. The Home Secretary must not for a moment suppose he was going to stop popular clamour, for which purpose the Bill was mainly introduced. Newspaper critics were not so logical that they would be deterred from criticising the judgments of three especially selected Judges. Attempts thus to

    1073
    prevent criticism were unworthy of public officials, and if the meaning of giving this right of appeal was to destroy news paper criticism he thought it would fail as it ought to fail. A person who administered the criminal law, however humble his position, should do his duty firmly to the best of his ability and be absolutely indifferent to criticism. The same thing applied to the Secretary of State. He ventured to press this point very strongly upon the House, and to ask them to reject the clause in its present form. Instead of doing good it would do harm. It would weaken the responsibility of juries and the position of the Home Secretary, and it would injure the chances of the persons who appealed to him. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal would be unworkable, and would bring discredit instead of credit to the criminal law. The criminal law at present was the one institution which could bear the light and defy criticism, and the pro posed unlimited right of appeal on questions of fact was unnecessary, and would tend to injure the administration of justice in the country.
    *MR. CAVEseconded the Amendment. He said he had for many years been in the habit of trying prisoners with juries, and he thought with his hon. and learned friend that it was a mistake to give unlimited power of appeal on questions of fact. He had not the least doubt as to the desirability of giving a right of appeal on points of law, and if there had been an appeal on points of law the error which occurred in the Beck case would have been remedied at once. But it was contrary to the opinion of the very great majority of persons who had experience in the criminal law that there should be
    1074
    an unlimited right of appeal on questions of fact. It was opposed by the majority of the Judges, by the late Lord Chief Justice, and by the present Lord Chief Justice in a speech of very great weight made in the other House, and had been referred to with disapproval by Judges in charges to grand juries. One Judge of great distinction had said:—
    "Such of us as have experience of Courts of Appeal on questions of fact in foreign countries know something of the abuses which these Courts create. They are the resort of rogues, who by money and delay trick justice of her due."
    When an experienced Judge with all the responsibility of his office used such words as these, he thought the House ought to pause before it lightly made the proposed change. It would be a complete reversal of the criminal system, for it was now proposed for the first time that the verdict of a jury might be set aside by three Judges. He knew that many Members were under the impression that the verdict of a jury in civil cases might be set aside on questions of fact; but they were mistaken. It was only when the verdict was not founded on any evidence or was what was called a perverse verdict—a verdict which no reason able man would give—that it could be impeached. In criminal cases no such appeal had ever existed, and he thought the proposal was founded on a wrong view of the criminal law. The trial of a man on indictment was not a case where one side was striving for victory over the other; it was really a solemn public inquiry, by a jury drawn from and representing the public, into the question whether the prosecution could prove beyond doubt that the person charged was guilty of the alleged offence. Everything was in

    1075
    favour of the person accused and opposed to the possibility of a wrong conviction. They were going to change all that and to substitute for trial by a jury, trial by three judges, who might, while acquitting a man of the charge upon which he had been tried and convicted, convict him on an altogether different count, and sentence him for an offence for which he had never been tried by a jury. It would be an injustice to convict a man in that way. Apart from that, he considered that there would be some danger in empowering these Judges to acquit a man of an offence of which he had been convicted by a jury. It would be a different thing if power were given to the Judges to order a new trial; but, when a man had been unanimously convicted by a jury who had had him before them and had seen and heard the witnesses, it was undesirable that three Judges, how ever eminent, should be authorised on the mere perusal of shorthand notes to release him altogether. He had a good deal of admiration for the way in which appeals had been dealt with by the Home Office, but even the Home Office admitted that it was not satisfactory that they should decide upon the case without seeing the witnesses. The same thing j applied to the proposed Court of Appeal, and he thought that in the interests of justice the right of that Court should be confined to ordering a new trial. There might be objections even to that course, but the main objection to the present Bill would not apply. He had followed the discussion carefully, and he still held the view that the step which they were asked to take was not in the interests of the administration of justice. It would strike a blow at the present system, and would lead to results which few Members really foresaw.
    Amendment proposed to the Bill
    "In page 3, line 1, to leave out paragraph (b) of Clause 3"—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'with the leave of the' stand part of the Bill."
    LORD BALCARRESsaid he was not familiar with the details of the Bill, but he respectfully submitted that the two speeches to which they had listened were of a character to demand some reply, and he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
    Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill): Mr. Bennett; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill): Mr. Hedges.
    Report to lie upon the Table.
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.
    Adjourned at one minute after Five o'clock till Monday next.