Sitting of 28 February 1923

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (SWANSEA HARBOUR VESTING) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL. [H.L.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to agricultural holdings in England and Wales, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill. It is the first of the legal Bills referred to in His Majesty s gracious Speech. It is not a Bill of a sensational character, but if it commends itself to Parliament I think that a useful and practical piece of work will have been done. The Bill is founded, as your Lordships know from the Memorandum, partly upon the Reports of some Committees which were appointed to consider questions of procedure in criminal cases. One of these Committees was a Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Horridge, and appointed to advise how the period of detention in custody of prisoners awaiting trial could be reduced. That Committee made two principal recommendations, to which effect is given in this Bill.
First, they recommended that justices, when committing for trial, should be
156
authorised to commit to any convenient assize or quarter session, although it might not be upon the same circuit, or even in the same county. For that purpose it is necessary to alter the old law of venue, and we give express power to commit to some town where an assize is being held though in a neighbouring county. Some illustrations of what the effect would be are given in the Report of the Committee. They say:
"As an illustration, we may cite the case of a prisoner who is committed in Buckinghamshire in June for trial at Assizes; such a prisoner, being too late to be tried at the Aylesbury Summer Assizes, which are held in May, is now kept awaiting trial till the Autumn Assizes in October;—
that is four months—
"but if effect is given to our recommendation, he could be tried at the Birmingham Assizes in July. Similarly a prisoner, who is committed in Worcestershire too late for trial at the Worcester Assizes, could be tried at Birmingham Assizes, which are hold six weeks later, instead of waiting in the ordinary course three or four months for the next Worcester Assizes. A prisoner who would ordinarily wait over two months for trial at Birmingham Assizes could be tried six weeks earlier at Worcester."
Your Lordships will see that a very substantial time would be saved during which the prisoner would, but for this enactment, have been in custody awaiting trial. If such a man is kept so long, and afterwards acquitted, there is a very serious miscarriage of justice. The provision with which I have been dealing is in Clause 8 of the Bill.
The second recommendation of that Committee was that the justices should have power to commit persons charged with certain offences which are now triable only at assizes, to quarter sessions for trial. Of course, quarter sessions are held at more frequent intervals than the assizes. The effect will be that these cases will be tried much earlier than they would otherwise be, and there will be a shorter period of detention. The offences are very carefully selected by the Committee as offences which are suitable for trial at quarter sessions.
To these recommendations another Committee, over which the Director of Public Prosecutions presided, added this recommendation, that there should be power to try summarily at petty sessions certain other offences—minor offences—which are now triable only on indictment, that is to say, at assizes or quarter ses-

157
sions, and so both relieve quarter sessions and save delay and expense to the county. That recommendation is given effect to in Clause 2 of the Bill, and the list of the offences in question will be found in the Second Schedule. I should like to add that that Committee called attention to the fact that the summary jurisdiction of magistrates has effected a very great improvement in our administration of justice. They point out that about 43,000 prisoners were dealt with summarily in the year 1919 for indictable offences only—apart, of course, from the many other cases which were dealt with, which were not otherwise triable on indictment. They point out also that an appeal is permissible to quarter sessions in every case except where a person pleads guilty, and that out of about 21,000 persons who were convicted and sentenced for indictable offences only nineteen appealed against their conviction. I think that shows, as the Committee say, that the courts of summary jurisdiction play a most important part in the criminal procedure of the country and that, generally speaking, their decisions are accepted. That recommendation also finds its place in the Bill.
Apart from that suggestion of the Bodkin Committee, the second Committee to which I have referred, we make a large number of proposals for the amendment of criminal procedure with a view of saving time and expense. Most of them are of a somewhat technical character and I do not propose to trouble the House with them at this period of the Bill. No doubt many of them may require discussion in Committee. But the short effect of them is to facilitate the trial of prisoners either at quarter sessions or at petty sessions.
There are only two further proposals in the Bill to which I should like to call the attention of the House, both of them, I think, matters of real importance. The first is a proposal in Clause 3 to abolish the grand jury at quarter sessions. The grand jury is a very ancient institution. At one time all indictments—all charges, indeed—must have come from the grand jury for the county; all bills were presented to the grand jury and the charge of the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions to the grand jury was one of the events of the year. There is a tradition in my county of Surrey that on one
158
occasion the Chairman charged the grand jury for three consecutive days on every question under the sun before he dismissed them to their duties. The charges are now quite short and that which is important is that substantially all the cases which now come before quarter sessions have undergone a careful examination by magistrates before the persons charged are committed for trial. That being so, an investigation, generally of a somewhat summary and cursory character, by the grand jury at quarter sessions is really no longer required.
The grand juries were suspended in war time with a considerable saving of expense to the country. It is said that the saving in London alone was from £10,000 to £12,000 a year, and what is, I think, more important was the very great saving of time to those gentlemen who would have been called to serve on the grand juries. So far as I know no harm resulted. When the war came to an end that suspensory measure came to an end, and the question of continuing it arose. The matter was referred by the then Lord Chancellor to the Judges. He found that the opinion of the majority of the Judges was in favour of the continuance of grand juries at all events at assizes; but they were not so sure about quarter sessions. In view of the opinion of the Judges I do not propose in this Bill to deal with the grand juries at assizes, but to leave them exactly as they stand. There is greater need, or possibly greater need, for them at assizes. The offences which are there dealt with are of a graver character, speaking generally, than those dealt with at quarter sessions. The grand juries at assizes are charged by Judges of the High Court, and I think that the burden on grand juries is not so great at assizes as it is at quarter sessions.
Many of your Lordships will know that the grand jury at the county assize is not so much summoned as invited to attend that particular county function. Most of the grand jurymen are magistrates, who are quite prepared to go and perform that service for their country. That is not so at the Central Criminal Court or at some of the greater cities in the country, where, I believe, the burden of service on the grand jury is severely felt. Still, speaking generally, it is true that the burden is not so heavy

159
in the case of a grand jury at assizes as it is in the case of the more frequent attendance at quarter sessions.
With regard to quarter sessions, I venture to say that the time has come when grand juries need no longer be summoned. If I may mention my own experience, I was for nearly twenty years Chairman of the Quarter Sessions of my county and for ten years Recorder of a borough, and throwing my mind back I cannot remember any occasion on which the absence of the grand jury would have had any prejudicial effect upon the administration of justice. There were, of course, some few cases in the whole of that time in which I recommended the grand jury to throw out the bill; that does happen now and again; but it would have been just as easy when the case was called on before the Court, to give a hint or to say something to counsel for the prosecution which would have had the effect of the prosecution coming immediately to an end. For the sake of the very few cases in which a bill is properly thrown out, I do not think it is worth while to keep the whole system of grand juries in the counties alive. The cost is heavy both in money and time. I have received, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department has received, a very large number of protests from grand juries against their being summoned. I will only read a few. The first, from Herefordshire quarter sessions, is in these terms—
"We, the undersigned, being members of the grand jury summoned to Hereford this day, desire to make a strong protest against the waste of time occasioned by calling so many business men, some from remote parts of the county, to fulfil an office which in our opinion now serves no useful purpose. We therefore beg to suggest that the calling of a grand jury for quarter sessions be discontinued and ask that this our presentment be forwarded to the proper quarter."
Then there is this one from Shropshire—
"Resolved that the grand jury assembled for the Quarter Sessions of Shropshire on the 3rd January, 1922, unanimously desire to represent respectfully to the proper authorities that in their opinion the time has arrived when the institution of a grand jury in connection with quarter sessions might be discontinued without detriment to the course of justice."
Let me give your Lordships one more. This is from the county borough of Croydon—
"That the grand jury sitting at Croydon Quarter Sessions on Friday, 6th January, 1922, regrets that the system of grand juries
160
has been resuscitated and is of opinion that great waste of time and expense is thus needlessly incurred."
I have a list of more than forty similar protests from grand juries at quarter sessions, and I think that a strong case is made out for the discontinuance of grand juries at quarter sessions.
I will only add that it has sometimes happened, no doubt, though quite rarely, that an original bill has been presented to a grand jury without previous investigation by the magistrates. That can be done, as your Lordships know, in certain very exceptional cases. We do not in the least propose to abolish that power, but we provide in the Bill that those bills shall be presented at assizes instead of at quarter sessions; so that the system will go on, but under revised conditions. I think your Lordships will come to the conclusion that that provision well deserves your very careful consideration.
There is one other matter in the Bill to which I desire to call your Lordships' attention and that is Clause 24, by which it is proposed to abolish a presumption which now exists in our law. It is the presumption that an offence committed by a wife in the presence of her husband is committed under the coercion of her husband. That presumption is a very old one, and in the case of all felonies other than murder and treason and all misdemeanours, the mere fact that the wife committed the offence in the presence of her husband is held to give rise to the presumption that she did it under coercion and, therefore, must be acquitted of any charge in connection therewith. There have been several cases, some in recent times, in which the Judge has felt himself bound by that rule to direct the acquittal of the wife of some offence charged against her. I do not say, it would not be right for me to say, that in those cases the jury, if they had been free to express an opinion, would have convicted the woman; but I am sure from the language used by the Judges in some of those cases that they, at all events, would have preferred that the matter should have been left to the unfettered decision of the jury.
This presumption ought now, I believe, to come to an end. In my view it has no relation to the realities of life to-day. The presumption that every husband beats his wife, and that every wife goes

161
in terror of her husband and would commit any crime rather than disobey him, if it was ever true, is not true to-day. Not every wife is a Lady Macbeth, but, speaking generally, I think that wives are free agents, and the question of their guilt or innocence ought to be considered on the facts and not be subject to such a presumption. The Criminal Code Commissioners, a very strong body, in their Report upon the Draft Code of 1878, recommended the abolition of this presumption, and that great authority on the Criminal Law, the late Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, in his well-known digest of the Criminal Law, said—
"Surely as matters row stand and have stood for a great length of time, married women ought as regards the commission of crimes to be on exactly the same footing as other people."
The Committee recommend the abolition of the whole doctrine of coercion in all such cases.
I must add this. Mr. Justice Avory's Committee, which dealt with the matter, proposed to go rather farther than I go in the Bill. They recommended not only that the presumption should be abolished but that the whole doctrine of coercion by a husband as a defence for his wife should come to an end. I am not quite sure about that. I am not sure that where actual coercion is proved that should not continue to be a sufficient defence for the wife in nearly all cases, as it is to-day. I should be very glad indeed to hear what members of the House who have experience of the law on this matter say upon that point. Subject to what may be said, I think for the moment the best course will be to abolish the presumption, and for the rest to allow the present law to take its course. Those are the main proposals contained in the Bill which, I think, as a whole, will commend itself to your Lordships' favourable consideration.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, with the general purpose of this Bill I am in entire agreement. The simplification and expedition of criminal trials is a matter of very great consequence, and I think, so far as I can follow them, that the provisions of this Bill will advance our jurisprudence a very considerable way in that direction. There are, however,
162
one or two matters which the Bill contains that I feel need even more public comment than was given to them by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. I refer more particularly to the section which provides that a man who has pleaded guilty of an offence before a magistrate should, none the less, be able to appeal. I regard that as a very valuable provision indeed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: He may appeal against sentence, but not against conviction.
LORD BUCKMASTER: If he cannot appeal against the conviction I shall take an opportunity, if I can, of moving an Amendment to that effect, because at the present moment I think many of your Lordships must be very well aware that there are quite a number of people in London who allege that they have been induced to plead guilty to offences in the hope and belief that thereby the matter would not receive the attention of the newspapers, and then they have found that the charge has been published on the following day and they have been ruined for life. There was a case of that kind not very long ago, in which a man was charged with accosting women in Piccadilly Circus. He was brought up for trial and was told, so he says, that it was a matter which would go through very quickly if he merely pleaded guilty, that he would be fined a few shillings, and that the matter would end. He followed this advice, but found that owing to his position his name was in the newspapers the next day. That man, who held a position of no little consequence, was ruined for life.
It is perfectly easy to say that you must not assume that a young man would do anything so foolish as plead guilty to a crime that he had not committed, but I think it is very unwise indeed to imagine that a young man of twenty-three or twenty-four will bring to meet such an ordeal as a charge like that the wisdom and experience that comes from years. He will be overwhelmed with the shock of the charge. He will be scorched at the mere thought of the shame of the disclosure. He will believe, and not altogether without reason, that whether he gets off or not, if the matter is published it will remain against him to the end of his days, and he may very easily

163
be induced to plead guilty in the hope that thereby the matter will pass in silence. I think that in those circumstances he ought to be at liberty to appeal not merely against the sentence but against the conviction itself. I am quite unable myself to say how far any of the statements that must have come to the ears of many of your Lordships are or are not true. I only know that they are not infrequently made, and it is impossible for anybody to test their truth without the process, which I think is right, of having a further trial if the person makes out a case for it. That is all I desire to say upon that point, which I regard as one of great importance.
The next point about which I wish to ask arises on a clause of rather a remarkable character which gives the right to search premises if there is any information to the effect that there are kept upon the promises indecent or obscene articles that are to be sold, or lent on hire, or dealt with for the purposes of gain. What I am anxious to know about that is what is meant by an indecent article. There are a large number of surgical articles that might very well be regarded as indecent, and there may be a number of them sold in obscure and even unpleasant shops, but I should not be very willing to support a clause to enable a search for any article that was called indecent to take place on this information, and then to have the articles destroyed unless it were found that they were not indecent.
I say honestly that I do not quite know what is meant by an indecent article. I do know what is meant by an indecent book or picture, but I do not know what is meant by an indecent article, and I think that some greater care should be given to the consideration of these words lest they be used for purposes for which I trust they are not intended. One of the most obvious of all the class of articles that would suggest themselves, especially in relation to events that are now transpiring, would be articles that were intended to prevent conception. I certainly should not be prepared to support any clause that enabled articles of that character to be searched for, seized, and destroyed on the order of a police magistrate.
Let me now turn to the only other matter upon which I desire to say a few
164
words. It is a question involved in Clause 24. I must say that I think it is being dealt with very lightly. What is the history of this matter? From times long antecedent to the Conquest right down to the present time, it has been a rule of law that if a woman commits a crime in the presence of her husband she shall be assumed to be committing it under the result of his influence, and consequently shall not be independently convicted of the offence. First of all, it is clear that a woman who commits a crime in the presence of her husband must at least do it with his connivance and consent. No one can doubt that. The question is whether you ought to assume that she is acting under his direction. This law is not based on foolishness; it is based on experience, and on something like 1,100 years of wisdom, and until quite recently I do not believe there has been any objection raised to it.
What has happened, of course, is that a case that recently occurred—to which I will not particularly refer, owing to my anxiety to avoid giving pain to people who have already probably suffered more than enough—caused people to desire that a woman should be punished as well as her husband, probably believing, though they knew nothing whatever about it except what appeared in the Press, that the woman was equally responsible, even if, indeed, she had not been the prime mover in the matter. Then they said: "Oh, it is a shameful thing; here is this man sent to prison and the woman is not." I do not believe that any case has been made for this clause. What are the cases where it is suggested justice has miscarried because this rule exists? The idea that you must look merely to physical violence, which is what the learned Lord Chancellor suggested, is to my mind quite away from the point. It is not the physical violence, it is the personal influence that the man exercises over his wife, and to deny that such a thing exists is to deny one of the strongest of all influences in the world. Anybody who has had any experience of law will agree with me that again and again you find not merely women but men who are so entirely under the influence of others that it is very difficult indeed to say that they have free will of their own.

165
In the case of women in the presence of their husbands it is a very sound rule of conduct on which to proceed, and it is ridiculous to imagine that you can test this matter by trying to convey the relationship of any one of your Lordships with your own wife. That is not the relationship you have to consider. You have to consider the position of those women, the greater part of the population of this country, who still live under conditions in which they are in the habit of obeying their husbands and doing what their husbands desire them to do. I know it is thought that all this has been altered by recent legislation which has put women in a position of independence. You cannot change a woman's nature by giving her a vote, or by enabling her to sit on the Bench, or by all the legislation you have passed recently. Woman's nature will remain exactly what it was before, and if for over eleven hundred years the people of this country have believed that that nature is of such a character that in the presence of her husband the crime she will commit will be a crime committed under his influence, I see no reason why we should alter it.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I should like to take a little more time before assenting to the three criticisms made by my noble and learned friend. Take that with which he dealt last; it is surely hardly a question of getting rid of the coercive effect of the husband's presence. What is proposed is that it should be left to the jury or the Judge to say whether there has been any coercion or not. If the Bill passes, that will be the effect of that clause; and surely it is right. It has been the opinion of Judges in recent cases which they have tried, and it commends itself to common sense. I should like, therefore, to have a little more time before assenting to any step which my noble and learned friend might propose to take on that clause.
Then, on the question of an appeal against the substance of the conviction of the magistrates as distinguished from the sentence, surely it is rather insufficient ground to point out that some young man has pleaded guilty when he ought not to have pleaded guilty. When people plead guilty, it is usually for a sufficient reason. An innocent man does not plead guilty, even on the advice of his solicitor,
166
and when it has happened that I have looked into the case, I have generally found some explanation which pointed to a different inference. It is most important that there should not be too great a multiplicity of appeals in these matters, and I am not prepared to multiply them merely for the sake of avoiding injustice in an individual case. Therefore, I think we shall have to be careful before we go further than the Bill proposes.
As to his criticism with regard to indecent articles. I do not think there is the smallest chance of the police interfering for the purpose of taking away articles which are for a genuine medical purpose, however questionable, but there is a great chance, as the law now stands, that they are hampered in looking for a number of other notoriously indecent articles which are on sale in the back parts of certain shops and which the public use to the public detriment. It is well that there should be a power of search so that these things, which are perfectly well known to the police, may be within their reach.
As for the rest I do not take the view that the Bill is merely a fasciculus of small changes. There is a principle on which I congratulate the Lord Chancellor. He is really trying in this Bill to get rid of the rigidity of the present system due to local considerations. I am speaking now of the power of sending cases for trial in localities other than those to which the old traditions of the common law assign them. The Bill is valuable in these respects—(1), Assize cases should be sent to quarter sessions when it is proper and obviously right that they should be so sent; (2), it is in many instances right that cases which are at present for technical reasons considered at assizes or quarter sessions should be dealt with by magistrates; (3), the power of sending a prisoner to be tried at some other assize court or quarter sessions than the one which the law prescribes at present is very desirable, but I feel that in this matter the Lord Chancellor ought to go further.
Successive Lord Chancellors have wished to get rid of the multiplication of assize courts and circuits. There are so many places, however, which have not only by tradition a Red Judge, but also a local Member of Parliament whose voice

167
is potent in the other House, that successive Governments have shrunk from dealing with the question of the redistribution of assize courts and diminishing their number because of the opposition in Parliament. Sooner or later it will have to be dealt with. It is no possible use to the public that a Judge should waste his time by going to a court where he is bound to go, but where there are no cases for trial. Far better to try them in a central place and have two Judges sitting if necessary in order to dispose of the business. But the Lord Chancellor, by force of circumstance, is compelled to stop short of that because of the opposition in those boroughs which have a Red Judge and a local member. That being so, I can quite understand the reason why the Bill stops short, though I do not approve of it. We shall be driven presently to the rearrangement of the circuit system, and the time has come to see it figure in a Bill. However, so far as the provision goes, it is quite good because it enables the authorities to get rid of the necessity of sending cases to be tried at a place where the Judge would have nothing to do except to try that one particular case.
There are other provisions which are valuable as diminishing the extent to which the authorities are hampered by rules which have existed from time immemorial but which have ceased to have justification. The abolition of the grand jury system in the case of quarter sessions is admirable. The Lord Chancellor made a powerful speech in favour of a larger proposition, which was to abolish it altogether. I could not distinguish—and I listened attentively—one argument in his speech in favour of retaining the grand jury system for assizes, while I did find in his speech one or two very powerful arguments for abolishing it. Why it should be retained, with its expense and with the vast amount of time which it wastes, I do not know. As the Lord Chancellor himself said, the influence of the Judge is sufficient to have the effect which a grand jury can exercise upon proceedings at an early stage. Not only so, but proceedings before the grand jury are in nine cases out of ten of a thoroughly perfunctory order. I hope that a little later this Bill will be followed by that which is in accordance with the opinion of, I think, the majority of present day
168
authorities—namely, the abolition of the grand jury system for assizes also. I know that a majority of the Judges pleaded for its retention, but we of the law are notoriously very conservative people. Fortunately we have a Government that is not conservative in the old sense, and I trust, therefore, that before long my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will be seen making himself consistent with the propositions of the speech which he has laid before the House to-day, and getting rid of this remaining anomaly in an otherwise very useful Bill, which I trust will pass.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will allow me, although I am neither a Lord Chancellor nor an ex-Lord Chancellor, nor ever likely to be either, to say a few words upon this matter, especially as I took a particular interest a year ago in the question of the abolition of the presumption, which I consider foolish and unnecessary, that a wife is always acting under the coercion of her husband when she commits a crime in his presence. I then cited the well-known case of Mr. Bumble, who declared that "the law is a ass" if it presumed anything of the sort. That was written by Dickens in the year 1837, and I am led to believe that popular opinion at that time was strongly in favour of the view which Mr. Bumble then took. In the year 1878 there was, as has been said, a very powerful Committee that considered this question and reported in favour of the abolition of the presumption. Again, we have had another Committee quite recently, Mr. Justice Avory's Committee, which has reported unanimously in the same direction.
It seems to me to be absurd for Lord Buckmaster to contend at the present time that such a presumption is in accordance with facts which are well known to all of us. It is strongly resented by the advocates of women. After I raised this question a year ago, there was some correspondence in the newspapers, and many of the women's rights societies passed resolutions in favour of the abolition of the presumption. I feel certain that it is most desirable that, if we are to maintain a proper and due respect for the law, the law should embody the customs and views of the society of the present day, and not of the society of 1,100 years ago. After all, as the

169
noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, has pointed out, even if you abolish the presumption, it does not prevent the wife, if she is really coerced by the husband to commit a crime, making that plea in extenuation, and proving it. If she can prove that she was acting under coercion, there is little doubt that, by the direction of the learned Judge trying the case, the jury would take that view and would acquit her. So much for that clause.
There are a few other points in this Bill upon which I should like to say a word or two. I have been Chairman of Quarter Sessions, I have practised at quarter sessions and I have practised at assizes, so that I know a little about this matter, though, of course, I cannot for a moment pretend to have the same knowledge as the noble and learned Lords who have already addressed your Lordships. I would venture to say that the obstacle which stands most in the way of the progress of this Bill—to which I wish an easy and fortunate passage—is its title. If you bring in a Bill "to amend the law with respect to the administration of criminal justice in England," you open what has been called a very wide door, and you will have, if not in this House at all events in another place, every conceivable Amendment proposed by every faddist who has any particular views as to criminal law, and it will be impossible to rule out any such Amendments. If I had been introducing a Bill of this kind—and thank Heaven I never have introduced a Bill, and never shall—I have been much more careful in limiting the title, so as to exclude the discussion of a whole mass of proposals which would have to be deemed relevant, but the weight and number of which would be liable, and I am afraid likely, to swamp the Bill in its passage through Parliament.
On the first clause, there is one matter upon which I should like to say a word. It is proposed to transfer to quarter sessions the trial of cases of bigamy. Is that really wise? The law of bigamy is not so simple as a good many persons think. Such questions will arise as: When is a marriage not a marriage? I who have lived on the border of Scotland, know that there have been many cases in which it has not been very easy to make out whether the Scottish law of marriage prevails in England, or whether
170
a marriage which is alleged to have taken place in Scotland is really a marriage or not. As Chairman of Quarter Sessions, I feel that, I should have been placed in a very difficult position in administering the law or proposing to lay down directions of law upon such a topic as that. When is a divorce nut a divorce? That, again, is a question which is apparently occupying the High Court at the present moment, and I observe that counsel in that ease have cited—I was going to say hundreds of cases, but perhaps that is an exaggeration—at least a large number of cases upon which they allege that a principle can be founded.
I should doubt very much whether there are many Chairmen of Quarter Sessions who would be capable of disentangling some of those very knotty questions, and yet before you can convict a man of bigamy, or advise a jury to convict, you must be perfectly clear what the law of marriage is. I should be doubtful, subject to anything that the Lord Chancellor and other authorities may say upon this matter, whether the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions throughout England and Wales are really a sufficiently competent body to disentangle the law upon that matter. The Lord Chancellor must remember that these Chairmen are not all as brilliant and capable as himself, nor have they had such long experience. For the most part they are country gentlemen who are doing their very best to render service to the country in the administration of the law. A great many of them are not trained lawyers, and would find considerable difficulty in dealing with this matter.
Then the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, raised the question of the abolition of grand juries, which is referred to in Clause 3. I strongly support the proposal to abolish grand juries at quarter sessions. I doubt whether they are of any use. But the logical position is rather difficult. If you are going to abolish them at quarter sessions, why not at assizes? The noble Viscount asked what arguments there were in favour of retaining them at the assizes which were not equally valid for retaining them at quarter sessions. The only arguments which occur to me are some which were propounded to me a good many years ago by two very eminent Judges with whom I was closely acquainted—the late Lord

171
Bramwell and the late Mr. Justice Hawkins. With both of these Judges it was my good fortune on many occasions to go round the circuits, and I remember that they agreed in this, that they said they were in favour of the retention of grand juries at assizes, for the reason that it gave the country gentlemen, who were engaged in the administration of justice throughout the country, an opportunity of seeing how justice ought to be administered and was administered by High Court Judges.
Those gentlemen are not in the same position as those who form the grand juries at quarter sessions, because the latter are not as a rule engaged in the administration of justice, while the gentlemen who are summoned for assizes are the magistrates and others throughout the country who are engaged weekly in the administration of justice; and seeing justice properly administered by a Judge of the High Court gives them a very useful and salutary lesson in the method in which justice should be administered. Whether that argument holds now or not I do not know, but I thought that your Lordships' House might be interested in knowing what were the views of those two very distinguished Judges.
Next I should like to say a word upon Clause 8—the change of the venue of trial from one county to another. In the interest of the prisoner I admit that it is very desirable, but do not let the interests of the jurymen be overlooked. I take the case of the counties with which I have been all my life pretty closely connected—namely, the counties of Cumberland and Westmorland. It often happens that in the county of Westmorland there is only one prisoner, or possibly two prisoners, for trial—sometimes not even that. If you are going to transfer those prisoners from Westmorland to, say, Manchester or Lancaster, as the nearest assize town, you are going to put upon the juries summoned there the burden of trying those cases—a burden which ought to be borne by Westmorland men. It might well happen that there might be a long case from Westmorland, which would occupy their time for some considerable period, and I think they would have very good ground of complaint if it happened frequently.
Again, if you are going to send eases in Cumberland to be tried at Newcastle,
172
why should you put upon Northumbrians the unpleasant and prolonged duty of remaining at Newcastle during several days, in order to try Cumberland cases? I think that is a matter which should not be overlooked, and if it were possible to make some provision, in some way, for it, I think those who already complain rather of the burden which attendance upon juries places upon them, would be to some extent relieved.
Lord Buckmaster referred to Clause 19 with reference to search warrants for indecent articles. I remember a case in which a Commissioner of Police in London came to me and brought me some of these articles. They were horrible and filthy. He said: "My wife received one of these this morning, and she received another some little time ago. I cannot do anything. The police are powerless. These things are sent by post, and we know where they come from. They are horrible and revolting things, and yet our hands are tied, because there is no section in any Act which enables us to go and search the premises—although we know perfectly well where they come from—of the person who sends them." He asked me whether it would not be possible to introduce some legislation to deal with this question. That has always remained in my memory, and it is, I have no doubt, the mischief which it is intended by this clause to prevent. These are not matters which I should like to speak of further in public, but I am ready, if the noble Lord wishes, to inform him exactly of the nature of the article which was sent.
With those few observations I can only say that. I wish this Bill every success. I feel certain that it will do a great deal of good, and although it is not of an ambitious character, yet it seems to me to contain a number of very useful reforms which have been too long delayed.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, many matters in this Bill must obviously be matters for discussion in Committee, and I think I am right—the noble Viscount will correct me if I am wrong—in saying that the Report upon which the chief of these reforms are based has not yet been printed. I have done what I could to get the Report of the Committee on Alterations in Criminal Procedure, and I have not yet been able to obtain it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Lord is mistaken. The Report has been printed.
LORD PARMOOR: I have not been able to obtain it, although I have applied for it. I only refer to that for a moment in order to express the hope that sufficient time will be allowed between the Second Reading, which this Bill will undoubtedly obtain, and the Committee stage, in order that these matters of procedure which to my mind are of great importance, particularly with regard to poorer criminals in this country, should be thoroughly considered.
Now I want to turn to one or two matters which have already been referred to, and which I think can properly be referred to on this stage. I entirely agree with what the noble Viscount opposite has said with regard to what has been called the presumption as between husband and wife, if there has been a crime committed by the wife in the presence of her husband. I should like the whole of that matter to be swept away; it is time that it was swept away. I agree with the noble Viscount opposite, and I do not agree with Lord Buckmaster, who spoke in a contrary direction. I do not know whether your Lordships have read the extremely interesting Report of the Committee. It pointed out that this old presumption never has applied in cases of murder and treason. It also points out that although the presumption is of the innocence of the wife, that, can be counteracted by evidence to the contrary, and I do not think that the clause, as it stands in the Bill at the present time, really does introduce any substantial alteration in the law. No doubt it says that the presumption is not to be made, but at the present time, even where the presumption is made, you can call evidence to rebut it.
I think it is time that the whole matter was put upon a new basis, and I support the strengthening of Clause 24 in the direction which the noble Viscount has indicated. I should do that largely upon the Report of Mr. Justice Avory's Committee—a very strong Committee indeed—who were in favour (to use their own words) of abolishing
"the whole doctrine of coercion by the husband as a defence for the wife, leaving her on the same footing as other people free
174
to establish any defence of that kind of compulsion (i.e., the fear of immediate death or grievous bodily harm) which affords a defence to any person except in the case of certain specified crimes."
If the noble Viscount puts down an Amendment in the direction which he has indicated I shall certainly support him. I am not very much impressed by the fact that this law, which I believe to be a wrong one, has been in operation for a large number of years. I am afraid I am not such a Tory in these matters as my noble friend Lord Buckmaster.
I am entirely opposed to the general principles enunciated by the noble Viscount, Lord Haldane, with regard to the administration of justice at some central point instead of locally, as it is administered at the present time. If you want to have a proper system of criminal jurisdiction my own view is that it should be such a one as may be exercised as nearly as possible where the criminal has a fair chance of establishing his defence. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, I have been for thirty years a Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Quarter Sessions, and my experience is that it is of the utmost importance that the old principle of administering justice locally should be maintained. I do not say that, because of the borough members to whom the noble Viscount referred; I do not think the maintenance of this jurisdiction depends on the authority or power of the borough members. To my mind it is entirely a question of how the criminal law is best administered. I have no hesitation in saying that it is extremely difficult for a poor criminal to obtain the assistance that he wants, or to be able to call the witnesses which he desires to call, if the trial is held at some distant assize centre, where perhaps he may have to wait a fortnight or three weeks before his turn comes for trial. That is an extremely serious matter.
I agree also with the noble Viscount that jurymen ought not to be taken away from their own counties, unless there is some great necessity for it. I do not believe that any such necessity exists. I know that more than once in Buckinghamshire we have unanimously protested against the notion that criminal jurisdiction could be exercised as effectively as it is now if our local courts were taken away and cases were

175
heard at some large assize centre. Although that matter is not immediately raised in this Bill, I should like at the outset to raise my protest against a rather bureaucratic way of dealing with these matters, because I think it overlooks what is the greatest interest of all—namely, that the poor criminal should be assured of as fair a trial as we can possibly provide for him.
I desire to refer also to the Report of the Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Horridge. What was referred to that Committee was the question of detaining prisoners without bail for a long time before their trial—prisoners who in many cases were found innocent after all. I will read the main statement in that Report, because I think it is of extreme importance, and deals much more effectively with the real difficulties than do the provisions in the Bill, although I am not against the provisions in the Bill on this point, if they are properly safeguarded. This is what the Committee say:—
"Magistrates have ample power to admit prisoners to bail, but we feel that we cannot too strongly express our view that except in cases of the most serious character, or cases where there is a cogent reason to believe that the prisoners will escape, the power cannot be too freely used."
I believe that everyone who has had experience of criminal jurisdiction would entirely endorse that. I am appalled sometimes when I read of the refusal to admit prisoners to bail pending their trial. The possibility of escape now is almost an absurdity, because, with modern publicity and our extradition law, it is almost incredible that a criminal who has been committed for trial should be able permanently to escape being tried. It is possible that some eccentric case might happen, but it is so unlikely that I consider that in all eases except those which Mr. Justice Horridge calls cases of the most serious character (which are only a small minority), bail ought to be allowed.
I gather from reports in the newspapers that the police sometimes oppose bail. I always regret that, and in some cases where complicated accounts are involved it seems to be a matter almost of fundamental justice that the person accused, who is supposed to be innocent until he is convicted, should be at liberty in the sense of being able thoroughly to prepare
176
his case before his trial comes on for hearing. And, although it is a matter of detail, I will ask the noble Viscount to remember this. There are tables attached to this Report showing the number of instances in which persons who were not allowed bail were afterwards found to be innocent. I will not read all the statistics, and I make allowances for the suggestions made in the Report—that is to say, that in the case of quarter sessions trial a man should not be detained more than a month, and in the case of trial at the assizes, not more than eight weeks. Admitting that principle, I find that in the year 1919 96 prisoners were unduly detained without bail who were afterwards found to be innocent. I regret every one of those cases; we all should. But it is an insignificant proportion of the whole number of criminals tried, and if, in accordance with the proposals made in this Report, bail were more freely granted—and I am very strong in my view that that ought to be done—the difficulties which are pointed out in the Report of Mr. Justice Horridge would be adequately met, I only say that in support of what was said by the noble Viscount who spoke last.
There are, no doubt, cases in which it is convenient to try charges outside the quarter sessions or assizes to which they would ordinarily be committed. I agree with that, but it ought to be only in somewhat exceptional cases, and you ought not to throw on the jurymen of one county the burden which really rests on the jurymen of another county. That is a very important matter in our criminal procedure. You want every one to assent; you do not want to have discontent in matters of criminal jurisdiction. You want people to be willing to give their time, and they will not be willing to do that if you put undue burdens upon them.
I am very much opposed to the proposal in Clause 3 for the abolition of the grand jury at quarter sessions. I think—though I am not quite certain—that the Society of the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of Quarter Sessions have protested against the abolition of the grand jury system at quarter sessions. At any rate, that is the unanimous view of my own quarter sessions in Buckinghamshire. Let us test the logic of matters as they stand. In spite of the effort made by the noble

177
Viscount opposite, it is wholly impossible to draw any distinction which justifies you in maintaining the grand jury for assize purposes, and does not entitle you to maintain it for quarter sessions purposes. Let us look at the two points of view. I regard the grand jury as in many cases a very proper protection for the persons charged. It may be—and my experience is the same as that of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack—that the power of throwing out a bill is one that is not often exercised; but in cases in which it is exercised I believe it is always properly exercised. I have sometimes asked grand juries to do it and they have done it, I think quite rightly; and the effect of it is not that the criminal is brought up or that a suggesion is made by the Judge to counsel, but that the prisoner is acquitted of the whole thing on the ground that he ought never to have been committed at all, or was probably committed under some mistake and there is no primâ facie ease against him.
Now let me take the case of a prisoner committed to the assizes. He is to have that advantage in future, while the prisoner committed to quarter sessions is not. As the noble Viscount pointed out, the jurisdiction of quarter sessions is very much enlarged under the proposals of this Bill; but why is a prisoner committed to the assizes to have the advantage of having his case dealt with first of all by the grand jury, while a prisoner sent to quarter sessions is deprived of that advantage? I speak as one believing in the grand jury. I believe it is a great constitutional safeguard. The noble Viscount and those who are opposed to grand juries may take a different view, of course. Whether they take a different view, or whether they take my view, it is utterly impossible to suggest any reason why different principles should be applied in the cases of assizes and of quarter sessions. I will go a little further. No doubt, the more serious cases are tried at assizes. It is in the less serious cases very often that the grand jury properly intervenes, and I cannot imagine that a prisoner should have a different right according to whether the particular magistrates think it convenient to commit him to assizes or to quarter sessions. I must not give his name, but I met this morning a
178
learned Judge and asked him about this very matter. He told me that in old days he was in favour of the abolition of grand juries. He had been, I think, a member of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach's Committee which dealt with the matter; but he had changed his view.
The noble and learned Viscount has referred to a matter which has been mentioned before, namely, the extreme advantage of something like a sermon being preached by one of His Majesty's Judges to the grand jury at assizes. That may be so: but, speaking as a Chairman of Quarter Sessions and having, I hope, as much morality as an ordinary Judge, I cannot see why, if that is an advantage in the one case it should be other than an advantage in the other case. As the grand jury is now constituted at quarter sessions and having regard to the fact that magistrates are drawn from all classes of the people, I do not think that the distinction to which the noble and learned Viscount referred, and which is endorsed by the great authority of Lord Brampton, is applicable at the present moment.
I admit that I regard the grand jury as of importance not only in giving proper protection to prisoners in particular cases, but in bringing the whole administration of the criminal law prominently before large bodies of the non-legal population. It popularises our system of criminal jurisprudence. It makes a large number of people cognisant of the principles on which it is administered. Above all, and I think this is most important, it convinces a great mass of people that every precaution is taken under our system in order to ensure, if possible, that an innocent man is not convicted. I need not go into the historic instances in which the grand jury has intervened, because they will be present to everyone's mind. I am pleading for the smaller criminal, the man who has some small offence charged against him, which is as important in his life perhaps as the larger crime is in the life of the more important criminal. I do not want to repeat it too often, but my view is most strongly, that it is the poor man and the small criminal who wants special protection in the administration of our criminal law.
The next clause about which I had proposed to say a word is Clause 8, which I think I might now pass over, adopting,

179
without repeating them, the arguments used by the noble Viscount opposite. Amongst the other clauses, one to which I think I am bound particularly to object is Clause 12, because I do not know upon what Report that clause is based. Clause l2 makes it obligatory upon a court of quarter sessions in the case of an appeal, whether they think the matter is one of importance or not, provided it is not frivolous to state a special case. That, I think, is going altogether too far. In the course of my experience, I have had many applications made to me to state special cases, and I hope that one has stated them in every case in which they could properly be asked for. But apart from mere frivolous applications, if there is a provision of this sort the court are to be obliged to state a case on some paltry matter which the whole court think can make no difference to the real decision—a case which in their opinion will be quite futile and useless.
Why should that be so? It leads, in my opinion, to a great derogation of the authority of quarter sessions. The counsel who argue at quarter sessions are, perhaps, less advanced in their profession than those who argue before the Judges at assizes, and they will say: "We will not argue this case. You are bound to state a special case, and we will not take the trouble to tell you what it is about or anything else." They are quite competent to do that. I do not want to throw any obloquy upon my old profession, but, after all, counsel proceed in these matters from the professional point of view. It is very often their object to gain time, or even to obtain further discussion upon a matter which ought to be ended there and then. When we come to Committee upon the Bill I shall move that that clause be deleted. At the same time, I want to make my view quite clear that these are matters of great importance. I have not yet seen the Report of the Committee upon which, I presume, that proposal is based, because. I was told that it had not so far been printed.
Another clause which I think is a very harsh one is Clause 26. I really do not know where it comes from. It deals with passports, and it provides that any person who makes a false statement for the purpose of procuring a passport, whether for himself or any other person,
180
shall be liable to imprisonment for two years and to a fine not exceeding £100. I think that is a monstrous penalty. People are constantly asking whether you will guarantee their respectability, or state that you know them, when they are applying for a passport. It is quite possible that a mistake may be made, however carefully you look into these things. In those circumstances, is a person who merely says that another person is one to whom a passport may be given, to be liable to two years imprisonment and the fine of £100? I am one of those who agree with Lord Raglan, and wish all this passport business to be brought to an end. But surely it is an absurd notion that in a matter of what, after all, may be really an innocent mistake, a punishment of this kind may be possible. It is no answer to me to say that a punishment of this kind will be given under the direction of a Judge. You must not give people power of this kind unless you think it is necessary for the purpose of public protection.
There are many other clauses to which I shall object when they come to be discussed in Committee, unless I am convinced by the Report, which I have not yet seen, that they are desirable. On the other hand, I wish to say that I ardently desire that this Bill should pass when the particular clauses have been thoroughly considered. I think it is of good omen that this Bill should have been introduced into your Lordships' House where we shall have ample time to discuss it, and where there are a large number of members who have had considerable experience in matters of criminal jurisdiction.
LORD SHANDON: My Lords, I wish to make a few observations with regard to two matters in this Bill. One of my observations will be in consequence of the views that have been expressed by Lord Buckmaster. The other point with which I shall deal is in regard to the abolition of the grand jury in quarter sessions. With respect to this matter I take a view which, although in substance the same as that of Lord Parmoor, I should wish to put in a somewhat different way. In the first place, I think there can be no logical difference, as a matter of principle, between the abolition of the grand jury at quarter sessions and of the grand jury

181
at assizes. If a grand jury is of no earthly use in the one case it is of no earthly use in the other.
I do not forget that there is a certain class of criminal offences—treason and matters of that, kind—as to which no one seriously suggests that it is not a very valuable provision in our law that ought to be retained, but I agree with Lord Parmoor that it is the little criminal rather than the big criminal to whom this constitutional protection is given. If we look at the matter from the point of view of the history of our law, we find that, historically, there are reasons for the functions discharged by a grand jury and we see how they grew and developed. To a great extent they have stopped, but the main advantage was that the system gave to the man whose life or liberty was concerned a final, impartial, educated tribunal which would regard the whole situation and say, "Is there really a case against this man to be tried, or is there not? Is he to be put through the humiliation of a trial, or is he not?" That is one of the things which impress the layman in our criminal procedure.
Is there a necessity for ceasing the use of this system, or ought it to be continued? I admit that the work which a modern grand jury has to do has been largely simplified, because now grand juries have before them facts that have been elicited after preliminary investigations which, to a certain extent, have cleared the ground. But that does not alter the logic that either the system as a principle is useful, or it is not. What I feel with regard to these changes, which little by little we are making in our legal procedure, is that we are rather too much disposed to regard the question of convenience, or cost, or something of that kind, and to allow that to influence us, forgetting that there may be behind the system something much more than we imagine.
This particular protection to the subjects of the State, as far as I know, never did exist in any Continental system of procedure. There are many things in Continental procedure, especially the French procedure, which I think are very good, and which we have not got. There are many things in it also which I think are bad and hope we never shall have. But I fear, in abolishing these things, which all had a meaning, and were serviceable
182
in the past, and, I believe, still are and will be serviceable in the future, we are rather leaving our criminal procedure in a disjointed condition. We are getting rid of something that appears to be troublesome and expensive, and in so doing we are gradually getting rid of the safeguards which persons had in the old days. Some of those safeguards have lately been got rid of. What is the necessity of getting rid of this particular thing? If it is got rid of, another safeguard will be gone. I may be wrong in the matter, but I think we are gradually adopting much of the spirit of the Continental system without preserving the safeguards which we boast that we alone retain. These may be very far-fetched ideas to some people, but I confess, having had some experience of the administration of criminal matters in another country, I do not think they are far-fetched.
With regard to the question of presumption of coercion, again it is a matter of personal experience. For two years I had, as Attorney-General for Ireland, continuous experience of this very matter. It was one of the functions of the Attorney-General in Ireland in the course of his duty to read all the depositions taken at petty sessions for the purpose of seeing what was to be done with regard to a trial, and. I certainly was impressed in a way which has given me a conviction with regard to this presumption that nothing could alter. My view is that the presumption is absolutely ridiculous. The fact that it is eleven centuries old does not make it any the better, and the sooner we get rid of it the better. I am much obliged to your Lordships for listening so patiently to my remarks. I feel with regard to both these questions that it is one's duty to express one's opinion if one has had experience that justifies one in interfering.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have no reason to complain of the manner in which this Bill has been received. I am, indeed, grateful for the criticisms that have been made, and, so far as they affect particular clauses, I have no doubt they will be raised again in Committee, when I shall have an opportunity of dealing with them. I only want to say this. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, pointed out that the Bill does not deal with the circuit

183
system, or the number of assizes. That is true, but it is not because I am in the least afraid of dealing with that matter. It is because, in my opinion, this is not a Bill in which that particular subject ought to be dealt with. I am not at all in favour of a radical change in the old well-established system under which, as it has been said, justice is brought to the door of every citizen in this country. I am not one of those who want radically to alter the circuit system. But the question of an improvement in the system is being considered, and if the Government should have any proposal to make with regard to it that proposal will be embodied in a later Bill dealing with Civil procedure.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MINES (WORKING FACILITIES AND SUPPORT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, this Bill is intended to remove certain obstacles which at the present moment interfere with the production of minerals in a way contrary to the national interest. As your Lordships are probably aware among the Committees set up by the Ministry of Reconstruction after the war to consider the problems arising and facing the country at the end of the war were two which were asked to report upon the proper development of the natural resources of the country. The first Committee was known as the Coal Conservation Committee, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, was Chairman. The other Committee was known as the Acquisition and Valuation of Land Committee, over which Sir Leslie Scott presided. In the diagnosis which the Committees made of the situation the two Reports resembled each other, and in the remedies they proposed they were very similar.
The causes preventing or delaying the proper development of the natural resources of this country are all set forth in the third Report of the Acquisition and Valuation of Land Committee. The proposals to overcome the obstacles which these Committees considered are, of course, all embodied in the Reports
184
issued by the two Committees themselves, and I do not propose this afternoon to weary your Lordships with the details. The Report of the Acquisition and Valuation of Land Committee was the subject of very long and careful consideration by the Government Department and by all the interests concerned—namely, the landowners, the mineowners and the royalty owners. In so far as Part I of this Bill is concerned agreement has been reached. It represents the views of all parties concerned as to how it is best and most practicable to deal with the problem by legislation.
Your Lordships will remember that in 1920 Lord Gainford introduced a Bill on this subject. It was very similar indeed to the recommendations contained in the Report of Sir Leslie Scott's Committee. It proposed to set up a Mines Department—that Department has already been set up; it is part of the organisation of the Board of Trade—and also a sanctioning authority. The sanctioning authority was empowered, on an application by any person interested in minerals, to make an Order removing any impediment to the production of those minerals if it was in the national interest to do so. As your Lordships will remember, that Bill passed through your Lordships' House, but was rejected in another place.
There are two main differences between Part I of this Bill and Lord Gainford's Bill. The first is that the tribunal which is charged with the power of deciding whether or not an Order is to be made is not the sanctioning authority, as under Lord Gainford's Bill, but the Railway and Canal Commission. In making this proposal the Government has been influenced by two things. First, it follows the precedent of legislation which has been already passed with regard to the compulsory acquisition of land, and, secondly, it saves expense inasmuch as it does not set up a new tribunal. The Railway and Canal Commission is empowered to call in, if it so desires, expert knowledge; it has the power of calling in one or more qualified assessors. The power of making a compulsory Order is vested in the Board of Trade and thereby Ministerial responsibility to Parliament is preserved. No Order can be made by the Board of Trade unless it is in exact accordance with the recommendations of the Railway and Canal Commission.

185
The Board of Trade may also refrain from making any Order if it considers that it is not in the national interest to make one. That is the first difference between Part I of this Bill and Lord Gainford's Bill.
The second difference is this. In Part I of the present Bill the scope is far less wide and the powers much less drastic. The present Bill does not deal with every impediment to production; it covers only certain specified types of circumstances. No right of any sort can be granted unless it is impossible to obtain it by private negotiation for one or other of the reasons which are set out in Clause 4 of Part I of the Bill. The grant of the right to work minerals is also subject to further special restrictions. It is granted only to persons who already have a legal interest in those minerals or adjoining ones, and only where there exists a, danger of the minerals being left permanently unworked, or where the persons working the two adjoining mines have agreed on an adjustment of boundaries but the lessors refuse to concur. There is thus no possibility of a mineral owner or lessee being compulsorily deprived of minerals that he may in his discretion wish to work or develop himself.
With regard to ancillary rights the conditions governing these are set out in Clause 3 and the only special condition which is to be fulfilled is this—the inability or failure to obtain them must be shown to hamper unduly the proper and efficient working of these minerals. There is no provision, as in Lord Gainford's Bill, for the Government Department to apply for any Order. To have attempted to secure this would undoubtedly have wrecked the agreed basis of the Bill.
On the question of support, the Bill also differs from Lord Gainford's Bill, though not from the Report of Sir Leslie Scott's Committee. It provides for the compulsory imposition of restrictions or conditions on the working of minerals where the Railway and Canal Commission, on application by persons interested in the land, are satisfied that it is in the national interest that these restrictions or conditions should be imposed. In regard to the question of compensation, provision is made for this in consideration of the rights that are obtained, and the nature and the amount of it, if not settled by agreement, are determined by the Railway and Canal Commission.
186
There is undoubtedly, in this part of the Bill, some interference with the liberty and the rights of private ownership. The Bill does involve this, but the limits are strictly defined and the safeguards are ample. No compulsory acquisition can be made except after inquiry by an absolutely impartial tribunal, and upon grounds of national interest. With regard to the estimated amount of minerals which will be released by the Bill, it is impossible to give any accurate statement, but the experts are agreed that it will remove difficulties which in the aggregate interfere seriously with the economy, efficiency, and volume of mineral production, and which are necessarily a drag upon the prosperity of the industry itself. Their removal will promote the development of the mineral resources of the country without destroying private ownership and initiative.
Now I come to Part II of the Bill, which is equally important but is more limited in scope. It deals entirely with the minerals which lie adjacent to or under the railways, and is an amendment of the existing Mining Code in the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845. Under that Code the railway companies can prevent the working of minerals up to a distance of forty yards from the railway itself on paying compensation. If, on the other hand, that work is undertaken with the permission of the railways, they undertake to make good themselves any damage caused thereby. The greater depth of modern mining has long made those forty yards a totally inadequate distance, and a great deal of damage has undoubtedly been done to railways by working outside that distance, and over this the railway companies have, under the Code, no control and no remedy.
In the Howley Park case, however, which was brought by the London and North Western Railway some ten years ago, railway companies were declared by the judgment to have, in addition to their statutory right, a common law right to prohibit by injunction working outside the forty yards area if that working was likely to cause damage to the railways; or to recover the whole cost of making good any such damage. It follows, therefore, that no mine owner could obtain compensation under the Mining Code if his workings were stopped before they reached the forty

187
yards limit. The tables were thus completely turned, and the result was that minerals lying outside that area of forty yards were thereby sterilised, for no mine owner cared to face so great a contingent liability so long as the whole cost of it might fall upon his own shoulders.
Since that decision, many arrangements have been made between the railway companies and the mine owners to work those minerals. It is agreed, however, between all parties not only that this involves a lot of unnecessary expense, but that it is also likely to cause friction in some cases. Very often agreements are not capable of attainment. Accordingly, a general arrangement was reached The Acquisition and Valuation of Land Committee suggested that the royalty owners also should be consulted, and that any measure of agreement arrived at between these parties should be embodied in an Act of Parliament. Further and prolonged negotiations have taken place. The original agreement has been somewhat revised, and the result is represented by Part II of this Bill.
The terms, though complicated, are, I am informed, understood by all three parties, and the result is that a maximum amount of minerals adjacent to the railways will now be able to be worked at the least possible expense, not only to those concerned but also to the community itself. Shortly, Part II alters the existing situation in the following way. Railway companies surrender their common law right of prohibiting by injunction working outside the area of forty yards or to receive compensation for damage done by such work. Mine and royalty owners agree—(1) to an extension of the statutory distance; (2) to accept a limited measure of liability for the damage done by the working permitted by the railways within that distance; (3) to accept a less measure of compensation for minerals outside the forty yards which have to be left unworked than for those lying within that distance; and (4) instead of being able to recoup, as under the old Act, the whole extra cost thrown upon them where they have to drive through minerals left unworked in order to reach minerals lying beyond, they receive only a percentage of that cost diminishing with the increasing width of the area left.
188
There is still one point in this part of the Bill upon which agreement has not been reached. It is not a vital one, I believe, but your Lordships should be aware of it. It does not affect the railway companies; it affects the mine owners and the royalty owners. The proposed new Clause 79A of the Bill says that where a mine owner becomes liable for damage he can pass on part of that contribution to the royalty owner by way of deduction. This has been agreed to in principle. It is agreed, too, that in leases made after this Bill becomes an Act, unless the parties contract out of it the royalty owner must bear his share. But what will be the effect upon existing leases? These vary, but most of them contain the following two covenants:—that a royalty is to be paid free from any deduction whatever, and that the lessor shall be indemnified against any claims for damage done to the surface by working minerals underneath.
The basis of the agreement in Part II of the Bill lays it down that any expenses incurred in working minerals at present sterilised should be borne in certain proportions by all three parties concerned—namely, the railways, the mine owners, and the royalty owners. The mine owners' contention is as follows: that as a natural consequence of this agreement they are entitled to make these deductions from the royalty under any existing leases, whatever the terms of those leases may be. The royalty owners agree that no covenants in leases made before the Howley Park judgment ought to prevent deductions from being made, but that in leases made after the Howley Park judgment every lessee must be presumed to have understood the law, and if he agreed to pay rent without any deduction whatever, or to indemnify the lessor against any claims for damage done to the surface, he then should be held to his bargain and not allowed to make any deductions whatsoever.
The relevant provisions with regard to this matter your Lordships will find in tilt proposed new Clause 85B (1), proviso (ii), on pages 20 and 21 of the Bill. There the issue is determined in a manner which may be equitable in theory but may be difficult to apply in practice. Negotiations are proceeding on this part of the Bill, and I am authorised to say that the Government

189
do not insist upon the words that are here inserted. If the parties who are still negotiating can come to a better arrangement amongst themselves, I am authorised, on behalf of the Board of Trade, to state that we will bring an open mind to bear upon the consideration of this question when the Bill reaches a later stage.
There is only one more thing that I need say in connection with the Bill, and it is this. Part I applies to the whole of Great Britain. Part II at the present moment does not include Scotland, but the Scottish interests ate now considering the whole question as to whether they should, or should not, be included in Part II of the Bill, and it is possible that at a later stage in the proceedings in your Lordships' House I may be in a position to propose that Part II, equally with Part I, shall apply to Scotland. That, I think, is all that I need say upon the Bill itself. I have already pointed out that it is practically an agreed Bill. It. is the result of very careful and long negotiations between all the parties interested, and the Government Department. Those negotiations have taken place, I believe, over a period of something like two years.
I realise that probably some of your Lordships who are interested in this Bill will not care very much for the measure itself, but if does any rate accomplish three things it will release a very large amount of minerals that at the present moment are sterilised and lying idle. As a consequence of that it will relieve to a certain extent the conditions affecting employment in this country. Lastly, it will conduce to the more efficient working of our natural resources. I beg to move that, the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a(The Earl of Clarendon.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, the first thing which I feel is that we ought to congratulate the noble Earl upon the lucidity with which he has explained an exceedingly intricate subject to the House. It is obvious that he has taken a great deal of trouble in mastering the law, statutory and common, upon this subject. As he has said, I presided over the first Committee which made recommendations on this subject—the Committee whose recommendations, together with those of the second Committee under
190
Sir Leslie Scott, are embodied in Part. I, which enables rights to be compulsorily acquired, when they cannot be got by private arrangement, for working minerals which have been left unworked because of such difficulties as boundary rights, water, &c. It is very important that this Bill should have been brought in to deal with the matter.
I am speaking from recollection, but I think that from the evidence of the eminent mining engineers who came before us, we found that there were 1,200 colliery companies which own coal in various parts of the country; that the boundaries are often very intricate; that at times, owing to disputes, large barriers of valuable coal have to be left to mark off one colliery from another; and that other large barriers have to be left to block out water, which could have been blocked out by less costly means had it not been for such difficulties as the intricacies of title. The Committee came to the conclusion that there was great waste of natural resources, and they made recommendations which are embodied in the Bill. Therefore, from the point of view of the public, the Bill is a very desirable one, but it is also, I think, a very desirable one from the point of view of the private owner. The Bill gives powers to the Board of Trade, safeguarded by the intervention of the Railway Commission, to prevent these obstacles of a technical character from operating any longer. That is the substance of Part I of the Bill, and the noble Earl has explained it so clearly that I need say nothing more about it.
Now I come to Part II. I heard, not with alarm but with apprehension, that the noble Earl was considering the application of Part II to Scotland. It may be quite right to apply it to Scotland, and the principle certainly ought to apply to Scotland as much as to England, but I should like to draw attention to the fact that the law of real property in Scotland is wholly different from the law of real property in England. And while it is right to apply the law to Scotland, my noble friend had better consult very carefully with the Lord Advocate—who is at leisure at this moment—upon the subject of how the principles of the Bill may be so moulded as not to cause confusion.
As to the matter which gave rise to the difficulties dealt with in Part II, I speak

191
with a little knowledge, because I was Lord Chancellor at the time the case came before this House, and I delivered the first judgment from the Woolsack. The Howley Park case was a very simple one. In the forties, when everything was going merrily concerning railways, there was passed the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845. That Bill contained a set of clauses to safeguard railways which ran through coalfields. As the noble Earl has explained, the railways had to be protected from the owners of the minerals who would want to get the minerals by the side of their lines. Under the Mining Code of that Act power was given to the owner of the minerals to work them, after giving notice to the railway, who, however, would have the opportunity of saying: "No, we are going to buy these minerals from you at their full price." It was ultimately decided that they could do that at any time. That was limited to an area of forty yards on each side of the railway itself. But mining operations are now going deeper and deeper, and people are seeking for minerals at much lower levels than they did before. Consequently it began to become apparent that, with the taking out of minerals all round and underneath, railways were not quite secured by the forty yards limit.
Then came the great case raised by the London and North Western Railway, in which the question was raised: "Have we not got some other rights in addition to those which the Statute confers?" I do not believe that people ever dreamed of those other rights when the Statute was framed in 1845. It was a day when landlords were powerful in Parliament, and, if they had dreamed of it, they would have taken good care that the mineral rights did not pass away from them. It was finally established by the tribunal of this House that the words of the Mining Code of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act were not enough to take away the lateral support which the railway had from the land and minerals beyond forty yards. The result was that a large quantity of minerals were in this way impounded. People could not work them, and colliery owners and landlords and royalty owners alike suffered.
This Bill has been brought in to embody some kind of convention which has been come to between the railway companies,
192
the mine owners, and the royalty owners to this effect: It is now apparent (though it was not in 1845) that you want a larger lateral area than the forty yards provided under the Statute on each side of the line, therefore let it be forty yards or a length equal to one-half the depth of the seam of the coal below, whichever is the greater; and if the railway company wants the support of the minerals beyond the forty yard area, and does not wish them to be worked, it will have to compensate the owners of the minerals for the amount, but the owners of the minerals get less, by Clause 16, on a principle of which I did not first see the point, though I think I see it now. They are to get the full compensation for the inner area within the forty yards, but only one-third of the rate for the outer area, lying beyond the forty yards. That I presume to be because they could not work these outer minerals at all before they could work the inner minerals by giving notice to the railway companies. I suppose that is the basis on which the noble Earl and his colleagues have arrived at an agreement with the mineral owners and the royalty owners to take less than the full compensation—namely, only one third. It only shows in what an absurd position the law was.
That is the substance of the Bill. It seeks to get round these difficulties. We shall listen with interest to the explanation at subsequent stages about the further agreements to which the noble Earl referred at the end of his speech. The Bill gives effect to the recommendations of two Committees, and, if it passes, it will make a great deal of mineral available which is not now available, and it will also prevent a great deal of flooding. The noble Earl did not allude to that, but that was a matter which a mining engineer brought prominently before us. At any rate, the Bill is a great step in the right direction, and I hope that the House will agree to the Second Reading.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I cannot say that I altogether approve of this Bill. It is a drastic measure, and it contains provisions with which I do not agree. But it is not a Bill to be opposed on the Second Reading, and I can only hope that Amendments will be inserted to remove any objectionable features. I hardly think that it should have been described in the Memorandum as an agreed mea-

193
sure. I think my noble friend Lord Clarendon used the words "practically agreed"; he amended the words of the Memorandum to that extent. The Bill was only read a first time last Thursday; it was not printed then, and I do not think it was circulated till Saturday; its two Parts run to about 25 pages, and it requires a great deal of careful consideration and reading. I sincerely hope, therefore, that the Committee stage will not be put down for a very early date.
THE EARL OF JERSEY: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Dynevor, I observe that the Memorandum describes Part II of the Bill as intended to give effect to an agreement between the different interests affected. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill somewhat modified that statement, and I am glad of it, because I am afraid that otherwise there might have been some misapprehension. I am not sure on what authority that statement was made. It is, I believe, correct that the various interests named were desirous of arriving at an agreement, so as to surmount certain difficulties which now obtain, and especially the difficulties arising from the recent decision mentioned in the Memorandum and also referred to by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. It is also true that, in the public interest, all alike were prepared to make material concessions to reach a compromise.
I would ask your Lordships to bear in mind that the concessions asked for from royalty owners were by no means the least in importance. Your Lordships will agree, I think, that a measure of agreement on the general principle of acceptance so as to effect a compromise is somewhat different from a pledge to accept in detail all the proposals which may be set out in the Bill. I am glad, therefore, to note that the noble Earl realises that this measure is by no means pleasing to all. I am glad, too, that he appreciates the fact that the various interests did endeavour, and have for a long time endeavoured, in a most public spirited manner, to arrive at a compromise in the national interest. He appreciates also, I believe, that the Bill can hardly go through without some measure of criticism, and that there are very many important points of principle involved. I do not desire to detain your Lordships by any lengthy discussion of this matter,
194
but there are some proposals which will need examination. In view of the fact that it is perfectly true that this Bill represents a compromise and that there is general anxiety to see it passed, and to see it passed with all reasonable facilities, these Amendments, can probably be considered on the Committee stage.
My noble friend Lord Dynevor pointed out that this Bill was only printed about six days ago, and there has hardly been adequate time to examine the proposals with the necessary care and minuteness. Therefore, I trust that the noble Earl will not think it unreasonable if I support my noble friend's request for an adequate interval to elapse before your Lordships are asked to deal with the further stages of the Bill. I have no desire whatever to raise needless difficulties; at the same time, I hope that it will not be thought that the royalty owners unanimously welcome this Bill as something which is in their interests. They are, I believe, prepared to cooperate in the public interest in arriving at the compromise which has already been outlined, and they are willing, as the other interests are willing, to make very material concessions to attain that object. Therefore I would conclude by asking the noble Earl whether, in view of possible Amendments, he would grant a reasonable interval before the next stage of the Bill is taken.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords. I do not know that I am called upon to reply to such criticisms as have been made by noble Lords who have spoken. But thee are two points on which, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to say a word or two. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, drew attention to the fact that it would be wise not to include Scotland in Part II of the Bill. The noble and learned Viscount may not have heard what I said on that matter, but I endeavoured to point out in my speech that the interested parties in Scotland are at the present moment considering the whole question. If there are pitfalls, I am perfectly certain that they will avoid such pitfalls, and Scotland, therefore, will not lightly be included in Part II of the Bill. Of course, I cannot say at this moment what their decision will be. They have not definitely decided.

195
With regard to the question which was raised by Lord Dynevor and Lord Jersey, may I say on behalf of the Government that so far as the Committee stage of the Bill is concerned, I shall be only too pleased to study the convenience of your Lordships? In regard to the Board of Trade, I should like to say that one gentleman who has taken a prominent part in the whole subject-matter of this Bill, Mr. Evan Williams, has gone abroad. He will not be back before March 10, and the Board of Trade are most anxious that they should have facilities for further conference with him when he returns. Therefore, if it is the wish of your Lordships that the Committee stage should be taken on a date subsequent to March 10, I am quite certain that that arrangement could be made.
On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PASSPORT SYSTEM.
LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN rose to ask His Majesty's Government—

1. Whether they are satisfied that the Aliens Order as at present administered is adequate to prevent the entry into this country of undesirable aliens;

2. Whether there is any reason other than the existence of this Order which has induced His Majesty's Government to make passports compulsory for British subjects travelling abroad;

3. Whether His Majesty's Government are satisfied that the assistance to the working of the Aliens Order rendered by the existence of the passport system compensates for the inconvenience caused to British subjects by that system;

4. Whether the procedure necessary to obtain a passport could not be simplified;

5. Whether countries have refused to enter into an arrangement with His Majesty's Government for the abolition of the consular visa, and what reasons have been given for such refusal;

and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose at the moment to make any remarks on the subject of the first three Questions that I have placed on the Paper, except to mention something that was said by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow—namely, that the possession of a passport does not entitle a foreigner to land in this country. If you look at your passport you will see that it says that those whom it may concern are required, in the name of His Majesty, to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance. Apparently, however, they are not required to do anything of the kind.
In reference to my fourth Question, if we must; have passports—and perhaps they are necessary, though I hope they are not—is there any reason why they should not be issued by Clerks of the Peace? It seems to me that those officials have very much greater facilities than the Passport Office for ascertaining the antecedents of applicants for passports; and such an arrangement would be a great convenience to the applicants themselves, and would enable the Government to dispense with the services of something like two hundred officials.
With regard to my fifth Question, I should like to draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to the fact that this country is in a different position from that of Continental countries. No foreigner need come here unless he likes, while thousands of Englishmen have to go to the Continent in order to reach Egypt, India, and so forth. It is the duty of the Government to see that those Englishmen are molested as little as possible. Only a few days ago I was reading an article written by a person who had had occasion to travel between Constantinople and London, and he described the difficulty and the trouble he experienced in getting across the frontier of Czecho-Slovakia. It appears that the officials of Czecho-Slovakia are able to bully British subjects with complete impunity, and I do not think that the Government can be regarded as doing their duty. I beg to move.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, in reference to the first Question of my noble friend, I am certain that at the present time the Aliens Order of 1920 is being effectively administered and is checking

197
the flow of undesirable aliens into this country. Not long ago there was a steady stream of very undesirable people coming in, and it is essential, I think, now that we have so much sad unemployment in our land and the housing difficulty is so acute, that that stream should never be allowed to flow again. There is, however, I think, a leakage in at least two quarters. Ireland at the present time is certainly harbouring some very undesirable aliens, and it may not be difficult for those aliens to cross over to this country. As I am sure your Lordships understand, the introduction of revolution into England was one of the cardinal points of the plans which have been so successfully carried out in bringing Ireland to ruin. I hope that in his reply the noble Earl will say whether sufficient precautions are taken to prevent undesirable aliens from coming to this country from Ireland.
Then there is what is called the Russian Trade Delegation which is now masquerading in London under the title of Arcos, Limited. It has been established in London for some time, and some of its proceedings are exceedingly mysterious. It is probably the most amazing firm that has ever been allowed to be established by a simple and confiding people such as we know that we are. It was supposed to have a capital of £100,000, and it claims to have clone in two years business amounting to £15,000,000 sterling. It apparently makes very large purchases and very small sales. That is the kind of transaction which would lead any bonâ-fide firm to ruin in a very short time. The directors seem to change at very short intervals, and some of them are certainly people who ought not to be in this country at all. As regards the shareholders, many of them seem to be employees who are credited with a £1 share each.
The main business of this firm is obviously propaganda, and it publishes now a weekly review which bears on the top the Soviet emblem, and round it the motto: "Proletarians in all the world unite," which is very cleverly camouflaged by being put in the Russian characters. This review is used to feed the Communist labour publications of this country and to feed them with exactly that kind of false information about the present conditions in Russia which the
198
Soviet. Government wishes the Labour Party in this country to assimilate. So far as I can see the officials of this amazing organisation are free to go backwards and forwards between Moscow and London. Perhaps the noble Earl will be able to tell me if I am wrong on that point.
With regard to passports, I entirely agree with my noble friend that they ought to be made as simple and cheap as possible. I sincerely hope that the system will not be abolished. The other day the noble Earl said that it was really our only guarantee of the nationality of the person who wanted to be admitted. I am not at all sure that that guarantee can be trusted in some cases. Passports are probably obtained under false pretences, but the system does provide us with some measure of protection, and therefore, I think, it would be very dangerous to abandon it.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies I ask leave to say a word or two because I took part in the debate the other day, and since then, in consequence of what I said, I have had a great many communications both from those who wish the passport system to be abolished and those who wish it to be retained and simplified. Further than that, I have had the advantage of direct information from the Home Office, who assure me that the passport is a valuable link in the chain which they are able to draw against the invasion of undesirable people.
If that is so, I can only emphasise what I said on a previous occasion. So long as the authorities of the State who are responsible for these matters believe that the present system is essential, I certainly shall do nothing to abolish it. But I share most cordially the views which have just been expressed by Lord Sydenham in regard to the particular association of which he gave details, and in regard also to the general question of the license with which these seditious organisations carry on their work here. I know there is a general and strong feeling against any interference with the ancient boast of this country that. she offers the hospitality of her shores to all decent people, but there is no doubt that a certain most undesirable class of person has a freer hunting ground here than can be enjoyed in ninny other countries.

199
Since I spoke last I have learned that the figures in regard to the number of aliens coming to this country, comparing last year with the year before it, which I gave, were inaccurate. The Home Office assure me that is so. I was told at the time that my figures were in every sense reliable, but the Home Office now state that that is not the case, and that the statement made by Lord Sydenham is borne out by the facts—namely, that the number of undesirable aliens has steadily decreased and not increased, as I had been informed. I therefore make that correction, but I desire to support Lord Raglan in the suggestion he has made that, assuming the evidence in the possession of the Government justifies the retention of the passport system, the whole method of issuing passports should be not only cheapened but simplified.
There are innumerable stories of people in difficult and painful circumstances who, desiring a passport to enable them to leave the country, find that they are unable to get one in less than a period of two or three days. If the passport system is necessary—and I am quite prepared to accept the statement of the Government made by Lord Onslow on the last occasion that it is necessary—surely it is a reasonable request to make that the issue of passports should be simplified, and that those who require them should be able to obtain them without all the cost and delay attendant upon the present system. That, I think, is a request which everybody must regard as reasonable, and, in the interests of humanity, I think it is a request that ought to be pressed. Imagine the circumstances of an unfortunate mother summoned by telegram to Rome, or some other part of the Continent, to the bedside of her child who is dangerously ill, and having to spend two or three days in efforts to get a passport before she can start !
I am afraid these are not fables but facts, and, if that be so, I contend it is the business and duty of the Government, if they regard the passport system as an essential adjunct of the regulations governing the admission of aliens, to take steps to simplify and, if possible, cheapen it in the interests of our own citizens travelling abroad. When I spoke last I firmly believed that the figures which had been given to me were accurate, and I have taken this oppor-
200
tunity of correcting them. I am glad to be assured by the Home Office that they will relax none of their efforts to prevent the invasion of this country by those who come here not to add to our prosperity but to try to destroy our institutions.
LORD FARRER: My Lords, as I also took part in the debate last week I should like, after what Lord Sydenham has said, to read the last Regulations. As regards passports they say: "British subjects resident in Northern Ireland should make application for passports to the Ministry for Home Affairs, Belfast. Residents in Southern Ireland should apply for passports through the petty sessions clerk in the district in which they reside." I am told there are no such persons in Southern Ireland as petty sessions clerks.
It is difficult, by the passport system, to keep out these particularly undesirable aliens. I originally had my attention called to this matter in the most peculiar way. At the height of the spy mania during the war I had the misfortune to have the direction of the tubes in London, in which we were carrying an enormous traffic with the utmost conceivable difficulty. One of those young gentlemen who, I believe, were called Provost-Marshals, wrote to me saying that it was very dangerous with so many aliens about to allow persons to travel freely, and asking if we could issue a passport for everyone who booked from Charing Cross to Piccadilly Circus? Imagine how that would diminish the travelling' That first led me to believe that a great many of the people who advocate passports desire that persons should not travel freely, and therefore I am entirely in sympathy with the noble Viscount who has just spoken in the view that if the system is necessary it should be made as reasonable as possible.
I may say that it was my own experience to see that the Regulations of the Foreign Office are not always carried out. About a year ago I wanted to have my passport renewed. I went to the office in St. James's Park. I was told roughly that the passport was too full, and I could not have it renewed. I was thereupon told that I should go to the end of the queue. I said that if that was so I should go straight to the noble Marquess who leads this House and ask why

201
my passport could not be renewed. I was then taken into a back room, begged not to do so, and told it was in my own interests that this was done, because I might be troubled abroad. I said that I could not see how it would be to my own interest to pay 6s. 6d., or whatever the amount was, more than the contract itself stipulated, and I got my passport renewed and never had the slightest difficulty.
I think there is a case for improving the administration of this passport system. If this was done it would help at the ports. The traffic between England and France, for which no passport is asked at all, is one which in the interests of both countries should be greatly encouraged. The noble Marquess who leads the House, a few days ago, said that any young fool could make a war, but that it took a statesman to prevent wars. That is a sentiment with which I fully agree, and I am certain that the barrier which this passport system raises between nations is most dangerous to the welfare of this country.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I will address myself first of all to replying to the Questions of my noble friend Lord Raglan, and then endeavour, as far as I can, to deal with the other points which have been raised during the course of the debate. The noble Lord asked whether His Majesty's Government are satisfied that the Aliens Order as at present administered is adequate to prevent the entry into this country of undesirable aliens. I answer most emphatically that this is the experience of the Government, and I will give your Lordships one or two figures which will show the immigration of aliens into this country during the past three years. In 1920, 427,242 aliens landed in this country and 420,836 aliens embarked, leaving a balance of those who stayed for a short time of 6,406. Those figures include transmigrants; those who land in this country in order to embark for America and elsewhere.
The figures I am going to give with regard to 1921 and 1922 are divided and do not include the transmigrants. In 1921, 294,569 aliens landed, and 305,866 aliens embarked; that is, 11,297 more aliens left this country than came into
202
it. In 1922, 316,159 aliens landed and 315,765 aliens embarked; that is, 394 more landed than embarked. Taking the totals of the three years the number of aliens who left this country exceeded the number of those who landed by 4,497, so that at the end of last year there were, approximately, 4,500 fewer aliens in this country than there were at the end of 1919.
With regard to the point raised by Lord Sydenham and Lord Farrer, I understand that arrangements with the Irish Governments have been concluded—I have not the exact terms with me—for dealing with those aliens landing in Ireland and proceeding to this country. Of course, no passport is necessary between Ireland and this country. The Regulation to which Lord Farrer referred is one made by the Irish Government and not by the British Government. If Lord Sydenham wishes to have any more information on the subject of the firm he mentioned I would ask him kindly to give me notice and I will endeavour to procure any information that may be available.
It has been said that a large number of former enemy aliens have come into this country. With your Lordships' permission I should like to give you a few figures in order to show that this suggestion is incorrect. I will take the months of November, December and January last, as statistics for these three months have been very carefully gone into. During these months 3,389 former enemy aliens landed in this country. Of these, 2,405 were visitors on business or other matters, who landed on a strictly limited time condition; 385 were persons who are usually resident in this country under the provisions of the Act, and who had been abroad and were returning after a short absence; 299 were seamen under contract to join foreign ships in British waters; 181 were enemy aliens who were in transit to other countries, and 95 were diplomatists or other officials. The balance of former enemy aliens, the new comers, who came to this country for the first time with a view of making residence here, is only 24, and of these 24 persons 21 were females and 3 were males.
Of the 21 females 14 were British-born wives or widows of former enemy aliens; they were English women who had

203
married enemy aliens and were not themselves aliens by birth; three were domestic servants in foreign Legations; one was a woman coming to marry a British subject; one was the newly-married wife of a German resident in the United Kingdom; one was a Bulgarian holding a Ministry of Labour permit to act as a companion, and one was an Ottoman subject coming to join her brother who is a merchant in this country. Of the males one was an Ottoman valet in the service of a British officer; one was a domestic servant in a foreign Legation; and one was a German to whom permission to return to his British-born family had been granted by the Advisory Committee set up under the Aliens Restriction Act, 1919.
It has been suggested in various quarters that if an alien has a visa on his passport from a vice-consul he comes into this country perfectly free. Let me go into that matter and explain to your Lordships that that is not the case. The granting of a visa is really a preliminary sifting which takes place in the country-of origin. If the official who issues a visa is of opinion that the individual is an undesirable person to land in this country he would not grant a visa, the person would not be entitled to travel, and the immigration officer at the port would be saved a great deal of delay and trouble. Among the aliens who entered this country in 1920 1,022 were refused admission at the ports after they had interviewed the immigration officer. In 1921, 1,712, and in 1922, 1,997 were refused admission. I think your Lordships will see that the examination of aliens at the ports is gone into with the very greatest strictness by the examining officers, and a large number of aliens are not admitted if they are not considered desirable, in accordance with Section 1 of the Aliens Order.
I pass to the noble Lord's second Question. The Aliens Order has nothing to do with British subjects travelling abroad requiring a passport.
LORD RAGLAN: But surely they cannot come back unless they have a passport?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: That is not travelling abroad. If the noble Lord will allow me I will conic to that point in a moment. The Aliens Order applies only
204
to people coming to this country, and there is nothing in the existing law to prevent a British subject going abroad without a passport if he wishes to do so. At the same time, I ought to say that in most cases he would be well advised to obtain a passport, because the laws of most foreign countries require all persons, their own nationals as well as aliens, to possess some certificate of identity, in order to comply with the police regulations of the country in which they happen to be. That is not the case in this country. We are not bound to have identity cards, as is necessary, I believe, in every other country, and the only satisfactory and useful means of identity which is available for a British subject is a passport. A passport has the additional advantage of enabling a British subject to establish his nationality at once if he gets into any difficulty and wishes to claim the assistance of one of His Majesty's representatives abroad. But if he does not wish to obtain one ho is under no compulsion to do so.
An illustration of this was afforded the last time your Lordships discussed this question by Lord Belhaven and Stenton, who told us that he went to France with an excursion ticket, and did not return but went on to Paris. That is an illustration of the fact that it is not necessary to have a passport. By arrangement between the various railway and shipping companies and the French and Belgian Governments it is possible, to meet the convenience of those proceeding abroad for a short time, for persons to take a 48 hours' ticket and to go to France without a passport.
LORD FARRER: May I ask why the noble Lord was stopped at Victoria?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am afraid I do not quite follow that question.
LORD FARRER: The noble Lord told us that he was stopped at Victoria and was not allowed to go through the barrier to the boat train.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I have inquired into that point, and I gather that the reason the officers at Victoria ask for a passport is for the convenience of the traveller, because it might happen that when he got to the other side and had no papers of identity he would be turned

205
out. It is done for the convenience of travellers and not on account of any legal obligation. I was going on to say that when the noble Lord went to France he had a ticket and proceeded to Paris. He did not tell us how he returned, or what happened in France, but I understand that if anybody wishes to reside in France for any considerable time it is necessary to obtain the usual police permit of residence. Consequently, if the noble Lord had stayed very long, he would have had to prove his identity. That would probably have been a very simple matter, and could have been done in ten minutes, but I mention the fact merely to show that it is not necessary to obtain a passport, though I should strongly advise any noble Lord who wished to go abroad, and desired to avoid inconvenience, to provide himself with one. With regard to the return to England, it is obvious that if a person is in England already and has a right to be here, and his excursion ticket takes him to Boulogne and brings him back, no difficulty arises, and it is a perfectly simple matter.
My noble friend asked me a question as to the necessity of possessing a passport on entering this country. My noble friend Lord Newton, who is not in his place to-day, told us that he returned the other day from Paris and had no difficulty in passing the immigration authorities at Dover. He just showed his passport and went through. But if he had not had a passport he would have had to interview the immigration officer. I do not suppose that my noble friend Lord Newton, or my noble friend Lord Raglan, would have any difficulty in satisfying an immigration officer of his bonâ fides or in proving, if I may say so, his intense Britishness, but he would undoubtedly have a certain amount of trouble, and instead of being able to get tea or refreshment at the station, or send a telegram, he might be detained with others who were not of British nationality. As I have explained, the passport is not an absolute necessity, but is a great convenience.
I pass to the noble Lord's third Question, though I think I have already answered it. The production of a passport is not designed to cause inconvenience, but to prevent inconvenience. As regards the noble Lord's fourth Question, I do not think that it would be possible
206
to do much now more than I have explained to your Lordships to simplify the system. Let me, in the first instance, take the method of obtaining a passport. The noble Viscount, Lord Long, mentioned certain difficulties which had come to his knowledge as being experienced by persons applying for passports. If my noble friend would inform the Passport Office, I am sure they would be very glad to look into those cases. Their whole object is to avoid such difficulties. In no country in the world can passports be obtained so speedily as in this country. In the vast majority of cases passports are issued with twenty-four hours of the receipt of the application. As regards urgent cases, there is a special department at the Passport Office to deal with them, and in such cases passports are issued within half an hour. In the case of sudden demands for passports, there are arrangements to deal with applications at any hour of the night. If an emergency arises there is an officer on duty to communicate with the head of the Passport Office, and the case is dealt with within an hour.
My noble friend Lord Lamington, who is not here to-day, mentioned the other day the difficulty of calling at the Passport Office. I think the noble Lord must be under some misapprehension regarding the necessity of a personal visit to the office, because in the vast majority of cases there is no necessity whatever for the applicant to call at the Passport Office. The application can be sent in by post, and the passport will be issued within twenty-four hours. I may add that this applies not only to passports but to their endorsement. Another question has been raised, though I do not know whether it was mentioned in your Lordships' House—I mean the necessity of having a, passport endorsed after two years. I may tell your Lordships that that question is now under careful consideration by the Foreign Office with a view to an extension to a longer period, and I trust that it may be possible to do something to meet the convenience of noble Lords and others in that way.
I come to the last Question which the noble Lord asked The only country which has refused to enter into an arrangement with His Majesty's Government for the abolition of the consular visa is Portugal, and no definite cause

207
has been assigned for that refusal. The visa is being gradually withdrawn in numerous cases, and no visa is now necessary in France, Belgium, Luxemburg, Spain, Switzerland, and Holland, while negotiations are in progress with the same object in Italy. Mention was made the other day of the trouble which is caused by having to get visas for every country through which a traveller is passing—transit visas, if I may so describe them. His Majesty's Government have considered this very carefully and endeavours have been made to obtain a simplified system of transit visas recognised by other countries, but in spite of all our efforts up to the present, and all the representations which have been made, these suggestions have not been accepted.
I can only conclude by saying that I think it is the general wish of this House
208
and of the country that the control of immigration of aliens into this country should be maintained. The matter of these regulations was carefully considered by the League of Nations at the Paris Conference in October, 1920. So long as control is maintained I urge that the present system of passports, etc., is the best that can be devised. I trust that improvements in detail may be effected, but I think the principle is one which must be maintained. I do not think it is possible, without doing away with all control, to do away with the system which has been the subject of very careful consideration by all the parties concerned.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.