moved to omit the provision proposing that Section 133 of the Lands Clauses Act of 1845 should not be incorporated in the Bill. To his mind that was a very reasonable section, and he did not see why, if that section applied to people generally, it should not also apply to the Post Office. He had no objection to compulsory powers being given to the Post Office to acquire new sites, but he thought the Committee had a right to say that those compulsory powers should be administered in a just way, and that no advantage should be given to the Post Office that was not enjoyed by other people who desired to acquire land by purchase.

said there was no intention by the incorporation of the words proposed to be left out to limit the effect of the Lands Clauses Act. This was merely a question of land tax and poor rate. As the hon. Gentleman was aware, the Government, although not assessed, made a contribution to the poor rate. So far as the land tax was concerned there was no desire to avoid that. When the State had taken over this land with the existing liability for land tax it was proposed to redeem the land tax, because the payment of a tax by one Government Department to another only led to unnecessary book-keeping. There was nothing behind it, and the omission had been a common thing in all these Bills for years past.

thought that in a technical matter of this sort the Committee ought to have the assistance of the law officers of the Crown before proceeding further in the discussion. He appealed to the Attorney-General to give the Committee the benefit of his assistance.

said he did not quite follow the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman for the inclusion of these words in this particular clause. He hoped the hon. Baronet would proceed to a division.

said the explanation as to the land tax was more or less satisfactory, but one difficulty was bound to arise, namely, that this method would prevent their getting proper accounts from the Post Office. He was inclined to think the payment of this small amount of land tax by one Department to another might give unnecessary trouble, but he would like to have the opinion of the Attorney- General upon it, as it was rather an important point. He would point out that while the property was being acquired the poor rate was still to be paid, and he wished to know whether that was paid by the Post Office or by the vendor or landlord.

said the Postmaster General settled the contribution to be paid in respect of the rates by Section 133 of the Act of 1845. Composition in lieu of rates he knew existed, because there was a regular Vote on the subject brought before Parliament. But the local authorities who received these sums would much rather have the poor rate assessment on Government buildings than this contribution, and he would like an assurance that the local authorities would not suffer by this subsection. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could give an assurance which would satisfy the local authorities that the income for the rates would not be prejudiced.

said the Crown was not liable to be taxed or rated. They, however, made a voluntary contribution in aid. With regard to the poor rate, the Treasury negotiated with the representatives of the union to which the rates were payable, and arrived at a sum which it was thought fair to contribute in lieu of a parochial assessment. That was, he believed, the practice which had now obtained in regard to all public buildings for a number of years.

:moved to omit Subsection (1)—

"The Postmaster-General may divert, alter and stop up any street, roadway, or passage within the limits of any land shown on the deposited plans, so soon as such lands are acquired by him."

That seemed to him to be an extremely arbitrary provision. In times gone by a great deal of injustice had been done by stopping rights of way all over the country; and there had been a great movement in later years to prevent roadways being blocked up. No one had been more assiduous in supporting movements in this direction than hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, and yet their own Government were now asking for power to divert or stop rights of way. He could not conceive that they would support such a clause, nor that a proposition involving such a policy would be allowed to go through Parliament in any Bill whatever. It must be remembered that this Bill did not apply to sites in rural districts or country places; it applied to London, Chester, Bournemouth, Eastbourne, and Dublin. When they took these towns one saw what a tremendous power this clause gave, and it seemed to him absurd that in a democratic House of Commons the right hon. Gentleman should propose such a clause for acceptance. Even if the clause was to operate only for a certain time he would not accept it; but, for all time the Postmaster-General of the day was to have power to divert or stop rights of way. Why should they give the right hon. Gentleman such a power? There seemed to be an idea that an official had some prescriptive right to do what nobody else was allowed to do. That was not his idea of the manner in which the affairs of the country ought to be conducted. Therefore he moved the omission of the subsection and he hoped he would have the support of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway in his endeavour to secure the lights of the people.

said he hoped, as on the previous Amendment, that the hon. Baronet would be persuaded to withdraw his proposal. The position was this, that if there was a well known right of way over a site acquired, it was put into the Bill, so that the House might have an opportunity of considering whether the Crown ought to be allowed to block a well-known and recognised right of way. In the process of building there was nothing to prevent anyone complaining if a right of way was interfered with. But this provision was inserted to guard against contingencies which might involve years of litigation. There was no desire whatever on the part of the Post Office to stop recognised rights of way with out compensation, and he entirely sympathised with what the hon. Baronet had said in that regard. It was necessary, however, to have some provision of this sort in order to prevent proceedings being undertaken probably by some cantankerous person.

said in this matter the Postmaster-General seemed to be afraid of some cantankerous individual, but whether he was cantankerous or not he had the right to protest against any right of way being shut up. What was the use of the Postmaster-General's promise to consider the matter, or his guarantee? They did not want that, because when the Bill was passed the right hon. Gentleman would have no power, and no amount of consideration by the right hon. Gentleman could affect the question. It had been said that if in the opinion of the Post Office there had been any rights of way they would have been shown in the schedule. He knew of one instance, at least, where such rights did exist. He could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman in one breath assured the House of his sympathy in maintaining such rights and in the next breath put into a Bill a clause which gave the Government power to close up all these rights of way. He could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman should be desirous of taking powers to override these public privileges. The opposition to the Amendment had been put upon a wrong basis when it was argued that it would cause delay in the erection of a public building. Of course it would, and delay would be quite right if a public right was being destroyed. Unless more solid reasons were given for maintaining this clause he should support the Amendment if it was pressed to a division.

said it appeared to him from the statement made by the Postmaster-General that the words of this clause were exceedingly ill-chosen. If the only desire was that no cantankerous individual should be heard why was it necessary to give the Postmaster-General power to divert, alter, and stop up any street? Upon the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman alone this subsection was either superfluous or oppressive. Either these public rights of way existed or they did not. He objected to these general powers being given to the Postmaster-General. Should it be necessary to stop up public rights of way, let it be done in each case by Act of Parliament after a public inquiry. If that were done the public could come forward and establish the right of the King's subjects to pass down a certain passage or street; but the effect of passing this subsection would be that the right hon. Gentleman would have power by statute to do away with any such public rights. Parliament had always been exceedingly jealous about public rights of way. He protested against granting the Postmaster-General any powers to shut up public highways which might or might not exist. When they shut up the rights of way belonging to a private individual there was not the same danger, because he could recover compensation, but they could not compensate the public for the loss of such rights. He hoped this question would be very seriously considered, because it raised a question of principle of great importance.

said the Government had seriously encroached upon the rights of the House of Commons. By this arbitrary and tyrannical clause they proposed to encroach upon the rights of the people themselves. They had been told that these words were put into the Bill to secure the position of this Department during building operations, but there was not one word about building operations in the clause.

pointed out that the clause appeared in previous Sites Bills passed by the late Unionist Government. It was intended for the protection of the Crown, and would not, of course, be used in a tyrannical manner. It was absolutely necessary that the clause should be retained.

said that post offices were generally erected at central places where time was of the greatest value, and it was not desirable that under the powers proposed to be taken short cuts and rights of way should be closed, and inconvenience thereby caused to the public. He had in his mind a short cut into Lombard Street in the City which was used every day by thousands of people. If the Post Office authorities bought the Land on the other side of that narrow passage and put up buildings, chat way would be closed, and a large number of people would have to go round about. That was one of the reasons why the Post Office should not be granted these extraordinary powers. Where streets or rights of way were acquired, and gas mains and electric cables interfered with, compensation would have to be paid, but even when compensation had been paid the disturbing of their arrangements in densely populated parts might be a very serious matter to the companies, and therefore the Committee should take the greatest care in granting powers to the Post Office.

said that Southgate, between Middlesex and Hertfordshire, was one of the districts which would be affected by the subsection. As the representative of the district he protested against this arbitrary clause. The right hon Gentleman had stated that it was in other Bills in regard to sites; but that was no reason for retaining it here. If injustice had been done before, that was a reason why the same form of injustice should not be continued now. The right hon. Gentleman had argued for the retention of the subsection on the ground that it would not be administered in an arbitrary way. But the right hon. Gentleman would not always be the head of the Post Office, and the administration of the Bill, when it became law, might fall to others who would act in an arbitrary way. It was not un-reasonable, therefore, to ask that the sub-section should be removed. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman meet the hon. Baronet who moved the Amendment by agreeing to a modification which would limit the operation of the subsection to a certain period? If the Postmaster-General would agree to lay a schedule on the Table, they would really know what they were doing. He objected to the interests of districts like Southgate being handed over to any hard-hearted Minister who might occupy the position which the light hon. Gentleman held now.

said he accepted the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that what was now proposed had been done on previous occasions by the Party to which he had the honour to belong. He would point out, however, that it had been done by means of a schedule. Every Party made mistakes, and if his Party had done something with which he disagreed, that was no reason why he should assent to a similar wrong being done now. It was no

:moved to omit Subsection (2). The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he thought there were no rights of way over the sites scheduled in the Bill, but ho happened to be one of the governors of Christ's Hospital, one of the sites included in the Bill, and so far as he knew it had always been the opinion of the governors that there were certain rights of way over that property which were used by the public, as well as one or two private rights of user. It therefore appeared that the matter was one which required some further investigation. Another point raised by the subsection was the question of pipes and drains affecting general rights of easement. It was a serious thing to do away with old rights of easement. In the two following subsections the Postmaster-General took power to regrant them or to make payments, but it was entirely within his discretion, and whilst they, of course, had entire confidence in the present occupant of the office, it was not reasonable to trust entirely to a public official. These matters would really have to be dealt with by the Post Office officials, for they would never specially come before the Postmaster-General unless some serious objection was raised, and there was a very serious objection to granting to public officials the right to stop up and divert pipes, sewers, and drains connected with important and complicated sites, particularly in the City of London. Legal opinion was really very little better than lay opinion, so diverse had been the decisions of different Judges. This confiscation of the rights of ease- ment included the rights of light and air — a very important matter in a congested place like the City of London. The buildings which might be erected under the subsection would seriously affect large and considerable sums. It therefore appeared to him that these powers should not be granted to the Postmaster-General unless he could give some further and more satisfactory explanation as to why he required them, and particularly the power to stop up rights of ways.

said the sub-section was inserted in the Bill so that the Crown should have the right of seeing that the public interest in the purchase of the sites and in the buildings to be erected upon them was not jeopardised. There was no intention of dealing harshly with the questions of easement and other rights. The clause was one which appeared in all previous Acts, and it was really necessary for the effective purchase and the carrying out of these public buildings. He hoped under these circumstances the hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment.

said there was one question which the right hon. Gentleman had not dealt with, and that was the question of the rights of way, in regard to which his hon. friend had raised the specific case of the Christ's Hospital site. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell them what he proposed to do in reference to that particular site?

said he should not be disposed to support the Amendment if it objected to the acquisition by the Post-master-General of private rights of way, but the subsection was extremely ambiguous. It proposed to vest in the Post-master-General private and public rights. What public right would become vested in him under the subsection? Perhaps he would also tell them to whom compensation would be paid for the acquisition of public rights.

said there might be some rights in the possession of some local authority, but he did not anticipate that any question of compensation would arise.

said he supposed the Post-master-General would have to undertake the upkeep of the sewers and drains which he acquired and thus relieve the local authorities. It was perfectly true the present Postmaster-General was exceedingly conciliatory, and would doubtless do everything possible to make things work smoothly, but there had been Post-masters-General in the past who had not been very conciliatory. In many cases rights as regarded light and air were affected by the immense height of post office buildings, and while they would always be disposed to trust the present Postmaster-General, they might not always have him in office. He thought, therefore, they ought to secure these rights in the future. He also asked what would become of the drains under the roads affected.

thought the hon. Member was pretty safe, for although the tenure of office of the Government was no doubt very precarious according to hon. Gentlemen opposite, still he considered that they would remain in office a few months longer, and there was still a large number of Members of the Opposition to look after them. Various public authorities had consider-able interest in drains, and he did not think the hon. Gentleman could anticipate that the Post Office would do anything to interfere with the rights of the public.

said the only question in which his constituents were interested was that of light, and the difficulties in regard to it arose from the height of Post Office buildings. It was a very serious thing in the City of London if the rights in regard to light were to be taken away. He asked what powers there were in regard to the right to light in the City of London. The question was most important, because, the City not being a residential quarter, if there was not sufficient light the deprivation rendered offices valueless.

quite agreed, and said the Post Office had been in communication with the Corporation of London in regard to the rights of light, and he did not think there would be any difficulty in regard to that matter.

said that having regard to what had taken place he did not think it wise to press this Amendment to a division. He thought that this was a Bill which might have been referred to a Committee upstairs, as it was very suitable for investigation by a Private Bill Committee.

said the Bill had already been before a Committee upstairs. It occupied the very exceptional position that it had gone to a Committee upstairs and then to a Committee of this House. It would then go to the House of Lords where it would be examined again in detail.

said he did not want to move the rejection of the clause, but he wanted to know why the rights and jurisdiction of the London County Council and of the citizens of London were specially preserved under the Bill, while no powers were taken to preserve the rights of the citizens of Middlesex, Hertford, and Northampton.

replied that in the case of the borough councils their rights were preserved, and as far as ho recollected the right of county councils outside London were also preserved.

:moved the omission of Subsection (2). Subsection (1) was an extremely good subsection. It provided that no purchase should be made by the Postmaster-General under the authority of this Act without the sanction of the Treasury. That was a most excellent sub-section, and one of which all on that side of the House would approve. He was sorry to say, however, that the next subsection of which he was moving the omission absolutely contradicted it, because it said that any such sanction might be given either generally or in respect of any particular purchase. The meaning of that as ho read it was that the Post-master-General might, go to the Treasury, and exercising his blandishments over the Secretary to the Treasury, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, get him to agree to give him any powers which he desired. Supposing the Postmaster-General said that he wanted,£20,000, the Treasury might say that was a reasonable sum, and grant it; but unless this particular subsection was omitted it appeared to him that any sum of money might be given by the Post Office for any particular site for a post office. If the Committee were going to enact that sort of thing they might as well leave out the clause altogether, and not require the Post Office to ask for the sanction of the Treasury. If the sanction of the Treasury was to be of any use it should have some reality, and he did not see any point in this subsection unless it was intended to deceive the House. He did not think that was intended by the right hon. Gentleman,

said the only object of the subsection was to secure that the application of the rate-payers' money should be safeguarded by Treasury sanction being obtained. If the hon. Gentleman had to do what he had had the honour of doing for the last eighteen months, he would know that the Treasury were not open to any blandishments. He might take it that this subsection would not be used in a manner in any way detrimental to the taxpayer. Its only object was to give elasticity to the working of the clause.

thought that the hon. Baronet's proposal would safeguard the public from any general sanction being obtained from the Treasury in order to enable the Post Office to make general purchases in the course of the year. To give the Postmaster-General a general power was to give him an authority which was extremely great, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman should be compelled to go to the Treasury and give them particulars of what he wanted. He suggested the omission of the word "generally."

did not think that the omission of the word "generally" would have the effect he desired.

said he did not wish to divide the House on the Question which had been put from the Chair, but he wanted to express the regret which was felt on that side of the House at the refusal of the Postmaster-General to accept the Amendments which they had moved in the most conciliatory manner. They had done their best to facilitate and to assist the passage of the Bill through the House, and he thought they might have been met by the right hon. Gentleman on the very small but important Amendments which they had proposed. If they had been accepted they would not have interfered with the carrying out of the Bill or with its object. Of course, the measure would have to be considered on another stage, but then he supposed in all probability nothing would be done to meet them. With regard to the Bill itself—

said that the only Question before the House was the Motion to report the Bill without amendment to the House, and the hon. Member was not in order in rediscussing the Bill.

asked whether it was not in order on the Motion to report the Bill to express an opinion on the Bill itself.

said it would not be in order. It would only be in order to ask a question, or to give some special reason why the Bill should not be reported.

said it would now be in order to put forward the arguments he had attempted to address to the Committee a few moments previously. Ho regretted very much that the Amendment moved on Clause G was not accepted, because he thought it was wrong that public rights of way should not be safe guarded on the usual lines. At the present time attempts were being made to alter the law with regard to public rights of way and to make it more difficult than at present to abolish them. Ho did not see why a Government Department without recourse to law should be allowed to close streets and public road ways in the way proposed by this Bill.

:moved a new clause with regard to the summary determination of appeals, and he earnestly hoped the Government would favourably consider it. It was a clause which he thought would have a practical bearing in making the new Court more flexible and convenient and less cumbrous and expensive. Some Members had voted against a Court of Criminal Appeal, but the House having decided that there should be such a Court, these who had voted against it now only desired to make it as convenient and sucecessful as possible. It was no doubt necessary that these criminal appeals should be left in the discretion of the Court of Appeal, but at the same time there could be no doubt that the necessity for two separate hearings in the case of every criminal appeal would add greatly to the total expense and delay. The person convicted would have to go through two proceedings for redress. He would first of all have to go to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal, and the appeal if allowed would be heard some time later. The Court would be working from two lists— one, a long list, for leave to appeal, and the other, a shorter list, dealing with the appeals themselves. power was given under this Bill to make the application for leave to appeal to a single member of the Court sitting in Chambers for that purpose. If the Judge refused leave, then the person convicted was entitled to have his application reheard in full Court Such an appeal would be a long one if a man came before the Court and said his sentence was excessive, and still longer if he said his sentence was unjust. Counsel would refer to voluminous shorthand notes and the appeal would take the greater part of the day, at any rate it would be a long and costly business. Let the House imagine what would happen. A man appealed against his sentence on the ground that it was excessive. Counsel for both sides would come before the Court. Counsel for the convicted man would allege that his client had received an excessive sentence. He would then go through the history of the case, which would take some time, and then it would be the novel, invidious, and repulsive duty of the opposing counsel to insist upon the adequacy of the sentence and to call attention to all the matters he could to aggravate the case. After an hour or two of the time of the Court had been taken up, the Judges, it might be, would come to the conclusion that the sentence was excessive. Under these circumstances the Court had only one course to pursue—namely, to state to the counsel fur the convicted man that he had made out a prima facie case and give the man leave to appeal against the sentence, in which case the counsel would come back in about two months time and go through the matter all over again. The object of the clause he now moved was to give the Court the right to say in such a case, "Not only do we give you leave to appeal, but we shall treat this application for leave as the substantive appeal." The Court which had come to the conclusion that the sentence was excessive would obviously have come to a conclusion as to what sentence ought to be given, and all this clause did was to give them power to dispose of the whole thing at once. In that way he thought that the clause would operate with great public convenience and save expenditure. It would also operate in the case of appeals against the conviction on the ground that it was unjust. In that case if the Court came to the conclusion that the sentence was not satisfactory, it would be a great convenience to allow them to say so and to order the case to be tried again at the next Assizes. He begged to move.

:seconded the new clause. He said it was an unfortunate feature of this Bill that all its stages had been taken at morning sittings, although the Attorney-General had been understood to say that the Report stage should not be taken at a morning sitting.

said that he promised to do his best to consider the convenience of Members belonging to the legal profession. He made representations to these who arranged the business of the House. but it was found impossible to take the Bill at any other time.

said that it was unfortunate, seeing how this Bill interested the members of the legal profession, who were unable to be present at morning sittings. To that extent the House was deprived of the full criticism which such a Bill as this ought to receive. He believed that the Attorney-General had under-estimated the amount of business that would be thrown on the Court of Appeal, owing to the large number of very small cases that would be brought forward. He appeared to assume that only large cases involving novel or great questions of criminal law or unusual questions of fact would come before this Court, but criminals of every sort would appeal against sentences, especially as the cost would be provided for them. In a great number of the cases which came before the Court the appeal might be allowed after full inquiry, and then the matter might be postponed for two or three months and have to be gone into all over again. Surely in matters of that kind the Judges could be trusted to deal with the cases which could be disposed of at once. Why was it that the Judge was not allowed to have this discretion, especially having regard to the possible block of business arising from the number of cases which would come before the Committee? Then, again, what was to happen in the interval between the leave to appeal given and the time when the appeal took place to the person who was appealing against his conviction and sentence? He hoped if this clause was not accepted some good reason would be given for it.

said that his hon. and learned friend was under a slight misapprehension as to the procedure which would be adopted in order to give effect to this portion of the Bill The motion for leave to appeal would be an ex parte motion made by a convicted person. In other words, it was proposed to revive the procedure of obtaining a rule nisi for a new trial. The appellant would have to satisfy the Court that there were very substantial grounds for setting aside the verdict, and he would have the advantage of doing that ex parte and without the presence of the prosecution. It was important that this step should be made as economical as possible, and unless there was some point proposed to be raised worth arguing it seemed to him to be unnecessary to burden the Exchequer with the cost of briefing counsel for the prosecution in order that they might attend when there was in reality nothing for them to answer. If the Court thought that there was no real ground for the appeal they would dismiss it; if, on the other hand, they felt some difficulty in supporting the conviction they might be glad to hoar what the prosecution had to say. In these circumstances the Court would have, where it was necessary, both parties present. Pro vision was made against frivolous appeals on questions of law only, because if an application for leave to appeal came before the Registrar, and he thought that it was frivolous, he could say that there was no substantial grounds whatever for it, and then a summary determination would be arrived at.

complained of the inconvenience of such a Bill as this being discussed at a morning sitting and pointed out that it was really impossible for professional men to attend at the House at such a time. He hoped his hon. friend would not insist on this new clause, because if it was the fact that these applications for leave were to be heard ex parte it obviously would not be right to dispose of the appeal itself in the way suggested in the clause. If the Court thought it was a vexatious or frivolous appeal they would dispose of it by refusing leave to appeal, but if they thought there was something in the case it would not be right that they should grant relief without hearing counsel for the prosecution and satisfying themselves that the prima facie case made upon the application for leave to appeal could be maintained.

said he did not know whether the person applying for leave to appeal would be satisfied with the decision of a Registrar. He thought appellants might insist upon a practice similar to that which existed in one of the High Courts of India, in the Registrar's office of which he had served, namely, to bring the case before a Judge sitting as an admission court whereby real courts, hearings and appeals would result. He had gathered that it would be permissible to some extent to discuss the principle of the Bill on this Amendment. If that were so it would be on Clause 1, Sub-section 1, and for his part he would say that this Bill was unnecessary in so far as it was designed to relieve the Home Secretary of his function of advising in the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. If the Home Secretary asked, as he always did, and followed the advice of the Judge who tried the case, his task and his responsibility would be lightened. It had been his own duty when British Resident at the Courts of Native Princes to exercise this function, and he believed, that upon the advice of the trying Judge it could be properly exercised, and out side pressure avoided or disregarded.

said the hon. Gentle man had mistaken the question. The question was that the now clause be read a second time, and upon that question the hon. Gentleman could not take the opportunity to discuss the principle of the Bill on Clause 1.

moved the adjournment of the debate on the ground that although no one doubted the good faith of the Attorney - General, it was un doubtedly the fact that it was under stood by hon. Gentlemen with whom he sat that this stage of the Bill would not be taken at a morning sitting. The Bill was of great importance to the general public and the legal professior There were many legal Gentlemen who sat on his side of the House unable to be present. Believing that the Bill was not to be taken, they had made other arrangements. He did not think his hon. and learned friends should be pre vented from taking part in the debate owing to an unfortunate misunderstanding. He begged to move.

:formally seconded the Motion.

said he desired to move the new clause standing in his name to postpone the operation of the Bill until not less than three additional Judges had been appointed to the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice.

asked whether it was in order to move to postpone the operation of an Act without stating it definite period in which it should come into force.

said he could not say it was out of order; he thought the hon. Gentleman was entitled to move.

said that if it were not in his opinion important he would not press it. They were all agreed that the King's Bench Division was undermanned, and although the House had agreed last week to the appointment of one new Judge, everyone admitted that that was not enough for the work the Division now had to do. This Bill would add a very large amount of work. There were some 12,000 convictions on indictment in the course of a year, and the probable number of appeals could not be put at less than 2,000 or 3,000. In order to hear these appeals at least three Judges would have to be taken away from their ordinary work for the greater part of the year, and no provision had been made for that contingency. He submitted that before the Bill came into operation some provision should be made to cope with this additional work, and he hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman would tell the House how it was proposed to cope with it. Unless he had some definite promise that something would be done to meet this obvious need he should press his Motion.

:seconded the Amendment. He was perfectly sure I that his hon. friend would not desire the appointment of three additional Judges unless their appointment was necessary. He was anxious, if they were to have a new Court of Appeal, to get that Court properly conducted. A short time ago there were not enough Judges to carry on the ordinary business, and if they were to have a new Court it would appear to be necessary to have additional Judges.

said it was difficult at this stage to fix the number of Judges, as they did not know what would be the result of this legislation, whether the appeals by prisoners would be few or many; they could not anticipate with any degree of certainty one way or the other. Further, it could not be seen to what extent it would be necessary to increase the judicial staff until a redistribution of the business of the Courts had been effected in the King's Bench Division and the Court of Appeal. A committee was now considering the subject, and it was quite possible that a portion of the business of the King's Bench would be transferred to a third division of the Court of Appeal. If that change should be effected, the existing staff of the Kings Bench Division should be able to undertake the work which would be created if this legislation were carried. In these circumstances he thought it was impossible to do more than to ask the House to content them selves for the present with the appointment of one additional Judge.

speaking with afl diffidence as a layman, said the Attorney-General had told them distinctly the other day that the average of arrears when the Courts rose for the Long Vacation was at least 600 cases, and he did not see how the transference-of work from one Court to another would diminish arrears—especially when the Court of Criminal Appeal was established—without an increase of the number of Judges. The Attorney-General had recently proposed the appointment of one additional Judge, but there was a division of opinion as to whether the number ought not to be three, in view of the great glut of work already existing, and the increase of work which must be caused by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

pointed out that if the clause were adopted the Government would be deprived of the opportunity of judging what addition to the judicial staff would be rendered necessary by the establishment of a Court of Criminal Appeal. What the Government wished to ascertain was what additions would be necessary after this Bill had come into operation. As he understood, the intention of the Government had been declared un equivocally that such additions would be made to the judicial staff as might be rendered necessary by the state of business after the Court of Criminal Appeal had been established. With that assurance, further discussion would be useless.

moved to leave out the word "seven" and insert the word "eight" in Clause 1. He had, he said, given a pledge in Committee to increase by one the number of Judges on the panel for the proposed Court of Criminal Appeal.

said he did not think that this proposal was what some of them had contended for in Committee. There were times when a great many Judges would be absent on circuit and it would be extremely difficult and inconvenient to make up the Court if any particular group of Judges was required to sit constantly in London. As they were considerably increasing the business of the Court, and they declined to appoint more than one additional Judge, it would be better to leave the Lord Chief Justice power to draw upon the whole resources of the King's Bench Division, and from time to time to constitute the Court with such Judges as it might be convenient to summon. While the substitution of eight for seven was a great improvement, the Lord Chief Justice making the ninth, and so enabling three Courts to be set up, he thought it would be preferable to accept the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for the University of Cam bridge, to leave it open to the Lord Chief Justice to summon such judges as could be summoned with least inconvenience to the course of public business. He suggested that the Attorney-General should drop the word "eight" and insert the word "the," as proposed by his hon. and learned friend the Member for the University of Cambridge.

said the proposal of the Attorney-General was that there should be a panel of eight from which the Lord Chief Justice was to select three Judges for the Court of Criminal Appeal, whereas the Amendment of his hon. and learned friend the Member for Cambridge University was that the Lord Chief Justice should be left free to select three from among any of the King's Bench Judges. They all desired to get the most suitable men for this Court, and they might be very sure that the most suitable men available would always be selected by the Lord Chief Justice. He thought it would be very undesirable to make changes in the composition of the Court, and that it would be most desirable to keep continuity of personnel. The Judges appointed to the-Court of Criminal Appeal would not be available for circuit work, at any rate for a long time. He thought the hands of the Lord Chief Justice should be left as free as possible in the making of arrangements already difficult to accomplish. It was suggested that some Judges were suitable for one class of work and some for another, but he could not see why a Judge who was fit to go on circuit should not be fit to sit in the Court of Criminal Appeal. But that was a minor matter. The major matter was that the choice of the Lord Chief Justice of Judges for the Criminal Appeal Court should be free and not limited to eight.

moved an Amendment to Subsection (4) of Clause 1, which provides that any question before the Court of Criminal Appeal should be decided by a majority of the Judges, but that there should be only one judgment delivered. The Amendment was to the effect that this provision should be modified where there was a question of law on which it would be convenient that there should be separate judgments by the members of the Court. The Government, he said, had maintained in Committee that the practice of the Privy Council to have no minority judgment should be followed in criminal matters, so that the executive, in the execution of a sentence, should have the full support of the tribunal. It had been pointed out, however, that questions of law might occasionally arise in reference to which it would be desirable to have the view of a minority of the Bench having regard to the possible necessity for further legislation. This argument had convinced him, and he thought it might be consistent with the general rule of the section if an exception were created in these cases referred to in the Amendment.

said he had a similar Amendment on the Paper, but he thought the Attorney-General's proposal better answered the object he had in view, and they were grateful to the Government for having introduced it. As the Bill was first drafted the practice of the Privy Council was to be followed, and no dissentient judgment pronounced, but the Privy Council had the power, and sometimes under careful restrictions exercised it, of departing from its own previous decisions, or modifying them; that was maintained by very high authority in various decisions. In regard to the Court of Criminal Appeal, if there was a dissentient judgment which might point to the necessity of legislation, it would be unfortunate if the judgment was not reported, and an Amendment made in the criminal law where necessary.

:next moved to insert a new subsection, "If in any case the prosecutor or defendant obtains the certificate of the Attorney-General that a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal involves a point of law of exceptional public importance, he may appeal from that decision to the House of Lords, but subject thereto." There were cases of the greatest public importance where questions of law might possible arise in the Court of Criminal Appeal which it should be possible to carry to the highest Court of the realm. He quite recognised the importance of securing finality; yet in the cases in question, in order that the law should be authoritatively laid down, so as to carry the greatest weight, not only in the Empire, but throughout the world, it seemed desirable to make some provision for an appeal. It had occurred to him originally that they should allow appeal by the procedure of writ of error, but they might have an error of law of the greatest magnitude which could not form the subject of a writ of error, because it was not apparent on the face of the proceedings, and, there fore, he had come to the conclusion that the best plan was to do away with the institution of the writ of error and to propose this Amendment. Inasmuch as the appeal would be brought in the public interest, care would be taken that no hardship was suffered by an accused person by reason of the appeal. In cases where strong public feeling was excited and jurists were divided in opinion, it was only the judgment of the highest Court of the realm that would be universally accepted. He begged to move.

thought the House would welcome the Amendment, but he pointed out that this was an entirely new departure with regard to the prerogative of the Attorney-General. It seemed to him that the Court which tried the case and might be divided in opinion upon some very grave point of law should also have power to grant leave to appeal. He suggested that, while reserving his own rights, the Attorney-General should extend these rights to the Court.

welcomed the Amendment. He did not think it extended the power of the Attorney-General unduly. He understood the object was to limit appeals of this nature to matters of great public importance or juristic interest. This power to give leave to appeal was not inconsistent with other powers which the Attorney-General possessed.

thought the fiat of the Attorney-General was the best course to adopt, because it brought a fresh mind to the subject, and he would carefully read the judgment of the Court in cases of this kind. He thought the Executive officer was the proper person to take the necessary step. He wished to point out that the prosecutor in a criminal case was often only a name. Therefore the Director of Public Prosecutions ought to be able to apply for this certificate. He thought it was quite novel to have an appeal direct from the High Court to the House of Lords. The power of the House of Lords to take the opinion of the Judges still existed, and probably in cases of this kind they would take that course. If this Amendment was adopted it would be necessary to provide that the Director of Public Prosecutions should have charge of the proceedings on the part of the prosecution in the House of Lords.

said it was an old practice to have an appeal straight to the House of Lords, at all events from the First Court in what was then the Court of Chancery. There was no real innovation in the course proposed in this case.

said he was pre pared to amend the Amendment so as to give the Director of Public Prosecutions, as well as the prosecutor or defendant, power to obtain the certificate. He would move his Amendment in the following altered form:-"If in any case the Director of Public Prosecutions or the prosecutor or defendant obtains the certificate of the Attorney-General that a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal involves a point of law of exceptional public importance, and that it is desirable in the public interest that an appeal should be brought, he may appeal from that decision to the House of Lords, but subject thereto."

:moved to insert in Clause 2, after the word "registrar" the words "and deputy registrar" His object was to provide that in the case of the illness or absence of the registrar, the deputy registrar should be able to take his place.

moved an Amendment to Clause 3 limiting the right of appeal to persons convicted ''of an indictable offence other than an indictable offence triable by summary jurisdiction'' He reminded the Attorney-General that there were a very large number of cases of indictable offences which were triable on summary jurisdiction, but in which the magistrate had to put before the prisoner the option of being dealt with summarily or sent to trial. It would surely be right that the prisoner should be informed that if he chose to go to quarter sessions or assizes he would have a right of appeal against the conviction and sentence. There was also the right of the prisoner, wherever a court of summary jurisdiction could give a sentence of more than three months imprisonment, to claim to go before a jury and have his case treated as an Indictable offence. To allow this great bulk of cases which were now dealt with at the smallest possible expenditure of time to come within the class of cases carrying with them a right to an appeal under this Bill, would overwhelm the Court with work and would bring under the notice of his Majesty's Judges a number of cases which were really unworthy of their consideration. He asked whether an accused person under the circumstances he had described ought not to be informed of the prospect before him if he chose to be tried by quarter sessions. He thought the framers of the Bill had somewhat under-rated the activities of local practitioners. Until the prisoner was convicted, the solicitor would have no particular object in framing the defence with any elaborate subtlety. As soon as the prisoner was convicted there came the opportunity of making out a case for the Court of Appeal. These who moved in criminal circles, or in the neighbourhood of such circles, were not so particular about truth as one would wish, and if they found after a prisoner had been convicted that certain evidence would have been of value to the prisoner at the trial had it been forth coming, persons would be found who would not be deterred by their regard for truth from putting the evidence before the Court of Appeal. To allow the great bulk of cases which were now dealt with at the smallest possible expenditure of time, to come within the class of cases carrying with them a right to an appeal under this Bill, would over whelm the Court with work and would bring under the notice of His Majesty's Judges a number of cases which were really unworthy of their consideration.

seconded the Amendment.

said the proposal of the hon. Baronet would unduly limit the scope of the Bill. It was not intended to afford any appeal from convictions by summary process. The whole scope of the Bill was to provide an appeal from convictions obtained before a judge, or chairman of quarter sessions, and a jury. It was obvious that a trial before a magistrate or a bench of magistrates was in an entirely different position. There was already a Court of Appeal applicable to such cases. He thought the short answer to this Amendment was that if a case could be tried by a Judge and jury, why should not the result be the subject of appeal? He did not think it would be proper to draw a limiting line such as that proposed, and he hoped his hon. friend would not press the Amendment.