The action of the Government on this occasion is quite in keeping with the extremely singular course of procedure they have adopted in connection with this Bill, which proposes to effect an important change in the administration of the Criminal Law, and, in fact, to revolutionise it. It is somewhat strange that the Attorney General should not have thought it worth while to be present when a Motion was to be discussed which would have the effect of removing the Bill from the consideration of the House to a smaller body of Members upstairs. The First Lord of the Treasury is not a Law Officer of the Crown, and I contend that it is nothing short of a scandal that such a Motion should be made with regard to this Bill by a layman. On that ground alone I should have been entitled to move the Adjournment of the Debate. I abstain for the present from doing that; but I suggest that as the Attorney General has treated the Bill with such contempt, the Debate cannot effectively take place on the present occasion. Now, the Second Reading of the Bill was taken late at night as a surprise, and substantially without debate. I have not known in my experience a previous case in which a Motion for the Second Reading of such a Bill has been made within half an hour of midnight. When this Bill was called on, an English and a Scotch Member—not legal Members—spoke against it; but the first Irish Member who offered to speak upon it was met with the Closure. The Bill proposes to revolutionise the Criminal Law of this Kingdom by giving a person accused of any offence against the law the option of making a statement upon his oath in regard to it; yet the Second Reading has been taken without debate. The Irish Members, who are specially interested in it, have been forbidden to speak upon it; the principle of the Bill has never been investigated, which in itself is a questionable procedure, and there is now a Motion before the House to remove the Committee stage of the Bill to a small Committee upstairs. I respectfully submit that such a proposal should not be tolerated without full and unrestricted debate on the Second Reading, and after the House have had an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the principle of the Bill. I would further point out that the stage which the Government wish to avoid is a stage which has actually been commenced. Therefore, the proposal of the First Lord of the Treasury is as inadmissible as it is uncalled-for. It is also a retrogressive one, and invites the House to declare a fiction. Now the Speaker stated, in reply to a question which I put to him on the subject yesterday, that the course proposed was an unusual one, and he added, after further inquiry, that the Bill had been in Committee, and that the Chairman was bound to report something, but that no substantial progress had been made with it. I think he might also have stated that it was not only unusual but unprecedented. No doubt the Speaker did not use the latter word, because he thought it might contain a reflection. At the same time, the term "unusual," coming from the Chair, was in itself something in the nature of a warning. I am entitled to submit that the Government have taken an unjustifiable course. In the ordinary usage of this House, when a Bill is to be referred to a Committee, it is open to any Member to move an Instruction; but the Motion of the First Lord of the Treasury is a restricting Motion, which would deprive the House, as a whole, of the right to give Instructions to a Committee, because the denial of the right of individual Members is also a denial of the right of the House. Surely that in itself is a sufficient condemnation of the present proposal. To refer this Bill to a Standing Committee on Law is a misuse of the machinery of this House. Those Standing Committees were devised for purposes well understood—they were intended to relieve the House of a certain kind of labour. It was proposed—and I think the Debates of the House at the time will show it—in the case of Bills, in regard to which there was general agreement as to their leading principles, ascertained on the Second Reading, and where Bills were complicated and required special knowledge, that it would be more convenient to the House that the Committee stage—the stage of detail and minute examination—should be deputed to a smaller body of Members having special qualifications. And I freely admit that in the case of such non-contentious Bills that procedure is better. But this is not such a case. The Bill is not complicated; it cannot be called a Bill of any length; it is not a non-contentious Bill. In the opinion of the Irish Members, the Bill is largely contentious, and we protest against such a Bill, with regard to which we have had no opportunity of expressing our views, being taken from the floor of the House, as a destruction of the most valuable rights of Irish Members with regard to legislation in this House. What is the constitution of the Law Committee with regard to Irish Members? The Committee of Law consists of 68 Members, and contains eleven Irish Members of all Parties. On it there are seven Irish Nationalist Members, four of whom—Dr. Commins (Roscommon, S.), Mr. T. M. Healy (Longford, N.), Mr. P. Mahony (Meath, N.), and Mr. J. E. Redmond (Waterford)—are absent. We have no assurance or expectation that any of these Members can attend the Committee upstairs. Six Irish Members have availed themselves of their right to put down Amendments to be dealt with by a Committee of the whole House, and here I have to return for a moment to the subject of the proposal to avoid the Committee stage to remark that the Committee stage had so far progressed that not only had the Chairman taken the Chair and reported Progress, but that these six Irish Members had availed themselves of their right to put down Amendments to be submitted to the Committee of the House, which it is proposed to extinguish. Only two of these Members are Members of the Standing Committee. The other four Members are debarred from bringing their Amendments before that Committee, because they are not Members of it. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir J. R. Mowbray) has, of course, the power to add fifteen Members of the House for the special purpose of this Bill; but although Ireland is specially interested in the Bill, the Bill is an Imperial Bill, and therefore the Committee of Selection, in adding fifteen Members, would not take any exceptional number of Irish Members. They would probably treat the Irish Members proportionately to their representation in this House. Therefore, we can only look for the addition of two or three Irish Members, and I submit that the four score Members who sit on this Bench would consequently not have any fair representation on the Committee. I say the nature of the Bill is such that it cannot properly be considered by the Standing Committee on Law. The main provision of the Bill is that a person accused of any offence may have the option of offering evidence upon his oath on the hearing of the charge against him. Now, Sir, I submit that if the Committee stage is taken away from this House, where it has the advantage of the presence of a number of gentlemen such as the Solicitor General for England, and the Member for West Ham, Mr. Fulton, and others who are versed in the administration of the Criminal Law—I say that effective consideration of the Bill cannot be had by the Standing Committee upstairs. In connection with the proposition that the person accused of the offence should be entitled to offer evidence in respect to the charge against him, there are two matters which require essentially to be considered. One question is whether such a change in the law will not be calamitous. It has to be considered whether a person accused and guilty of a crime and of opinion that the facts against him are conclusive, might not be tempted to try a last chance by offering a false oath, and to fortify this by the perjury of others. That is one point in regard to which we cannot have satisfactory consideration except by this House itself, or by a Select Committee which would have the opportunity of examining experts. There are two points relative to Ireland. In England the administration of the Criminal Law is impartial; but in Ireland, owing to political and agrarian conditions, the administration is not impartial. I say that, in order to enable me to vote upon the clauses of this Bill and to vote upon its Third Reading, I require the testimony and evidence of persons versed in the administration of the Criminal Law in Ireland as to whether the ends of justice would not be defeated by a provision of the law which affords the accused person the option of offering evidence upon oath as to a charge against him- self. In my opinion, in any case of political or agrarian character which comes before the Justices, the Police, or the Stipendiary Magistrates, or before a jury packed with persons who are not of the prisoner's creed, or a trial after a change of venue, the option of offering evidence upon oath will be likely to operate against the ends of justice. For, if the prisoner declined to give evidence, it will be taken as proof of his guilt; and if he did offer evidence upon oath, the particular charge against him would be used by the Justices of the Peace, the Stipendiary Magistrates, and counsel for the Crown in cases where the jury was packed, as a means of extracting political information not relative to the particular charge, but relating to movements in the country. It would also be used, in cases where the prisoner pleaded good character, as a most offensive, irritating, injurious, and unconstitutional inquisition into the whole course of his life. I submit there are grave and substantial reasons why the Committee stage should not be taken by the Committee on Law, but by a Committee with power to call experts to give us the evidence we are without at present, and which we require in order that we may come to a judgment upon the matter, and which will not be afforded by the course we are about to pursue. I hold that the most convenient proceeding will be to allow the ordinary course to be taken, so that Members from Ireland and other Members may address themselves in Committee of the whole House to the consideration of the details of the Bill. I submit, under these circumstances, the First Lord will do well to withdraw the Motion which he has made—a Motion which the Chairman has declared to be unusual, and a Motion which carries inconvenient and unconstitutional consequences. If the Government refuse to adopt this course, I submit it is the duty of the House to object to the Motion.

I have on the Paper a notice of Motion which I hope it will not be necessary to move; or at least, before that course is taken, I hope we shall have an explanation from the Attorney General as to the reason of the unusual course proposed in reference to this Bill. I feel especial regret at the absence of the Attorney General, because I have to call the attention of the House to a report—I hope and believe it is an incorrect report—of the speech which he is alleged to have made on the Second Reading of the Bill. That speech, if it was made by him, must have been, from his knowledge and from the circumstances of the case, a deliberate attempt to mislead this House. ("Order!") I say I cannot believe that this speech was made by the learned Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton)—though no Member of this House watches the proceedings with greater care than he does, in his endeavour to prevent the many injustices which are contemplated constantly by hon. Members opposite—has been slightly inaccurate in his description of what occurred on the Second Reading of this Bill. He has confused the Second Reading of this Bill with the similar stage of another Bill. If the facts had been as he suggested, the present Motion would, indeed, have called for comment. But as the facts stand, the Motion is subject for much more serious comment, and the point is one the House would do well to consider if there are to be any longer relations of ordinary courtesy between Members on one side of the House and on the other. In that interest it would have been better had the circumstances been otherwise. It appears, according to the report in Reuter's Parliamentary Debates, that the Second Reading of this Bill was taken immediately after the discussion of a technical subject on which the majority of the Members of this House were not interested—the Indian Councils Bill. One would have thought that a Minister, rising to propose an important measure after a discussion on a Bill of that character had suddenly ended, would have explained to the House the nature of the measure he was proposing, and whether, from his past experience, the Bill was non-contentious or not. I do not find that the learned Gentleman did anything of the sort. According to this report, he said—

"I beg, Sir, to move that this Bill be now read a second time. There has been a universal expression of opinion in favour of the measure, which was read a second time last year, and which has been most carefully considered by Lord Herschell and by all the lawyers in the House of Lords, and it meets with their approval."

What may be thought of this measure by Lord Herschell or the lawyers of the House of Lords we do not know. It is very probable that they do approve of this measure, because it is a matter of common knowledge that Irish Nationalists are not represented in the House of Lords. They do not want to be. But so far as Irish lawyers in the House are concerned, the Attorney General must have known that they were, and have for many years been, determinedly opposed to this or any similar measure. When in 1888 a similar measure was proposed in this House, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) opposed it most vehemently when the Attorney General had the conduct of the measure. So that it must have been within the knowledge of the Attorney General that, instead of there having been a universal expression of opinion in favour of this Bill, it was a Bill which a large section of Members in this House determinedly opposed, and will continue to determinedly oppose. If, then, the Attorney General did use those words, I venture to say it was most unfortunate, in the interests of courtesy between hon. Members on opposite sides of this House, in the interests of Government business to-day, and hereafter, during this Session, and to the end of the present Parliament, that the statement should have been made. It appears that if this report is correct the Second Reading of this Bill has been obtained by what is little less than fraud. By contrivance it was that the Second Reading was obtained when, of course, no Irish lawyer was in the House, and when Irish Members who are not lawyers did not see what the Bill meant, but were deluded by the statement that there was a universal expression in its favour. But, even so far as Great Britain is concerned, I know there are many distinguished lawyers who are opposed to this measure. The hon. and learned Member for the Brigg Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Waddy), a distinguished criminal lawyer, has told me he is opposed to this Bill because he believes that in many cases it will lead to the conviction of innocent persons. Hence, as far as even England is concerned, it is not the case that there has been a universal expression of opinion in favour of this Bill; and as to Ireland I am not aware of any lawyer there in sympathy with the popular movement who has expressed his approval of this measure. Of course, hon. Members opposite may dismiss Ireland from their calculations when they propose such measures of reform, but we Irish Members are determined to do our duty by those who send us here, and to oppose measures which we believe will lead in Ireland to the conviction of men who are innocent of the charges made against them. We may hear it said that no man need give evidence who does not wish it.

Order, order! The question is, which Committee is best calculated to deal with this Bill—a Committee of the whole House, a Select Committee, or a Standing Committee.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that my words were not perhaps directly relevant. If, however, we had had an open discussion on the Second Reading there would have been no difficulty in explaining the nature and effect of the measure, in so far as it might be necessary to show that it is one which should be considered by a Committee of the whole House Hon. Members who have no knowledge of the character of judicial trials in Ireland cannot understand what the effect of this Bill will be there, and why it is essential in our judgment that it should be discussed openly and in the light of day. But, Mr. Speaker, without trespassing upon your ruling, I will try to show why it is of vast importance that, this Bill should be discussed in Committee of the whole House. In a Committee of the whole House, for instance, Irish opinion will necessarily be more fully represented than it could be in a Committee upstairs, because Irish Members are not always able to give as full attendance to Committees upstairs as they would like. And besides, there are measures before the Standing Committee on Law which have no interest whatever for Irish Members. Then the discussions before a Standing Committee are but slightly reported. Though many hon. Members, and I for one, care little about that, and would be prepared to spend hour upon hour even in camera to prevent such a Bill as this passing, yet it is a noted fact that where proceedings are not reported it is difficult to obtain a regular attendance. But apart from that consideration, this is a matter of great public interest, and one which concerns the constituencies of hon. Members intimately, and for that reason I think it should be discussed under circumstances that will give them the opportunity of knowing how their Representatives act in regard to it. As far as I can learn, no such Bill as this has ever been suggested after mature inquiry by any Commission or other body. The Royal Commission which inquired into the question of the Criminal Code in 1879 did make certain suggestions on this subject, but the learned Commissioners were divided in their opinion. Some of them thought it would be better not to allow prisoners to be examined at all. However, the majority overruled the minority, and they did, under certain conditions, propose to give prisoners the right of giving evidence. But what were those conditions? In the first place, the learned Commissioners considered that it was essentially necessary to give power to the Court to strictly limit the right of cross-examination, not by mere rules of evidence, but at discretion. In the second place, the learned Commissioners did not propose to give a prisoner the right to give evidence on oath, or to give the prosecuting counsel the right to cross-examine, at a preliminary inquiry. They only proposed to give such right to the one or the other at the trial. To Ireland this is a matter of great importance. It means whether or not Removables in Ireland are to have the power to worry and torture unfortunate men who come before them. The Judges of Assize in Ireland are not always beyond suspicion of political feeling. They have obtained their places by faithful service to the Crown in obtaining convictions, and most of them carry to the Bench not a little of the feeling shown by them at the Bar. They remain Crown Prosecutors upon the Bench. There is a danger in the proposals of this Bill in the case of trial at Assize, but there is a greater danger in the case of trial before a Removable Magistrate. If the Government had brought in a Bill in the terms of the Criminal Code recommended by the Commissioners I have alluded to, we might have had less objection to the discussion of the details before a Grand Committee, but as they have chosen to bring in a Bill which is essentially different from what was recommended by those Commissioners, and which has not been recommended by anyone after full inquiry into the subject, I think we have a right to demand that discussion of its details shall be carried on by a Committee of the whole House. Then the Government have deliberately removed the safeguards which were introduced by the wisdom of the learned Commissioners in their Report in 1879, and have neglected to supply any others. Many safeguards might be introduced, if this Bill were considered by a Committee of the whole House. For instance, I notice that an hon. Member opposite—a Conservative of the old school, who does not wish to break up the foundations of the British Constitution—proposes that if prisoners, are to be put in this new and dangerous position they shall be provided with counsel to watch their interests. The hon. Member opposite is not a Member of the Standing Committee on Law, and therefore that reasonable Amendment cannot be moved, at any rate by the hon. Member who has designed it, before the Committee upstairs. This is one of the safeguards that might be inserted in the Bill. Well, Mr. Speaker, this Bill is one which we in Ireland are resolutely opposed to, and we will oppose it here or upstairs. Surely there is enough distrust of the law in Ireland already, and enough difference between the tone and temper of the English and Irish Courts, without altering the Criminal Law of Ireland in such a way as to increase that distrust and difference. An hon. Friend of mine, who is a Unionist, went to Ireland, and although he remains a Unionist he said to me, "I must admit that in the tone and temper of the Courts of Justice, and in the way justice is administered in Ireland, as compared with England, there is a difference which the mere letter of the Statute Book cannot explain." The fact is that in Ireland the jury are often of a different religion, and even speak a different language from the prisoner. The Judge, too, from his whole training, is opposed to the prisoner, regarding himself as a being of a superior class. Jury, Judge, and prosecuting counsel are linked in an effort to punish the unfortunate man who is placed in the dock. In England the prosecuting counsel is thought to exceed his duty if, in an ordinary case, he uses all the skill of his profession to obtain a conviction; but in Ireland the prosecuting counsel's greatest achievements are those in which he obtains convictions on behalf of the Crown. I venture to think, Mr. Speaker, as there is already great distrust of the law in Ireland, it would produce a disastrous effect if this House were to decide that a further change in the law, opposed by the vast majority of Irish Representatives, shall be carried out in such a way as will deprive the mass of the people of knowing anything about what goes on. If the Government persists in sending for the consideration of Standing Committees Bills on which there is an essential difference of opinion as to the principle, they will entirely destroy the utility of these Committees. If Bills like this are sent to the Standing Committee there will be no moderate or reasonable measure, about which there is a general agreement, passed through it this year. The consideration of the Amendments to this Bill will necessarily be more lengthy in a Standing Committee than in a Commitee of the whole House, for many reasons. In the first place, the Closure does not apply in the same way. At any-rate it is not so commonly applied, and for other reasons it is probable that the discussion before the whole House would take a shorter time than the discussion before a Standing Committee. So I venture to ask the Government, if they wish the Standing Committee on Law to do any useful work in the interests of legal reform during this Session, to withdraw the proposal they now make and allow this Bill, which must remain essentially contentious, and on which there must remain an essential difference between the Irish Members and Members on the opposite side of the House, to be discussed in a Committee of the whole House. I appeal to those Gentlemen opposite, who though they may be Conservatives are not in favour of uprooting every principle of freedom which still remains, to help us in passing this reasonable Amendment, and I appeal to them to prevent the passing of a Motion which would be disastrous to the administration of the law in Ireland, and would destroy the last vestiges of respect for the administration of justice that are left in the Irish people.

With regard to the observations that have been made as to the absence of my hon. Friend the Attorney General (Sir R. Webster), I regret it is impossible for him to attend in his place, but I will try to replace him, and lay before the House certain reasons which I think should convince hon. Members that the course we propose is the correct one. The Member for West Belfast commenced his speech by referring to what happened at an earlier stage of this Bill.

If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me I will at once admit that I fell into error. The Government had rushed the business and we were taken by surprise. In speaking just now I was in error, and had another Bill in my mind.

I was not going to make any point of it, but I was going to remind the House that the hon. Member had fallen into an error as regards this Bill.

I confused it with another Bill.

There was no Closure on this Bill. It was read a second time without opposition in a thin House, and when the hon. Gentleman and, I have no doubt, several of his colleagues from Ireland were absent. There was no taking by surprise on the part of the Government in any evil sense of the term. The Bill was on the Order Paper in the ordinary way, and the Irish Members were quite aware, or might have been, if they had consulted the Paper, that it was likely to be brought on. The Member for West Belfast alleges that it is not a very usual course of procedure to refer to a Standing Committee a Bill of which the Committee stage in the full House had already been begun. I say that the Committee stage had not been begun. The Chairman had been got out of the Chair, but no question had been discussed, no Amendment had been proposed, and no progress had been made with the measure; and if the Minister in charge of the Bill thinks that its progress would be facilitated by transferring it, even at this stage, to the Grand Committee, I confess I see no objection to that course, and I do not think the House would have any reason to complain.

Even if Amendments have been put down?

I do not know that that ought to make any difference. The House is aware that the object for which the Grand Committees were established was to relieve the Committee of the whole House of some of the heavy labours thrown upon it. But the hon. Member has a further objection to the course proposed by the Government, based upon the fact, as he seems to think, that the powers of the House to move Instructions on going into Committee had been destroyed by the particular procedure we have adopted. The hon. Gentleman is certainly mistaken, because, suppose we went on with the discussion before a Committee of the whole House, the power of moving Instructions has already been lost, and no additional or further loss is entailed by the fact that this Bill is to be discussed upstairs. Further, I do not think either the Member for West Belfast or his friends need be afraid of the particular procedure in this case, because I do not gather that any of the points which they desire to bring before the Committee are of a nature which would require an Instruction to be moved. I have taken down some of the points they have mentioned. For example, there is the point that counsel should be allowed in order to protect witnesses; that power should be taken to limit the cross-examination of a person on his trial; a limitation of the subjects on which he may give evidence; and the character of the Court before which this evidence on the part of the alleged criminal is to be taken. All these, I admit, are points of great importance, but none of them would require an Instruction to be moved beforehand that they might be adequately dealt with in Committee. What is true about the details of the Bill is equally true with respect to the next point; and if I may gather from their speeches, what hon. Members really desire is the exclusion of Ireland from the Bill. They based their opinions on certain alleged shortcomings of the legal tribunals in Ireland. They can scarcely expect me to agree with them in their estimate, either of trial by Resident Magistrates or by Judges of Assize. But whatever may be the ground of their opinions, the question of the exclusion of Ireland from the operation of the measure is emphatically a question which can be dealt with without instruction, and emphatically a question to be dealt with by the Grand Committee on Law. In fact, questions of that kind can be far better discussed in the Committee upstairs than in the whole House. Lawyers are very strongly represented in the Grand Committee—Irish lawyers are very strongly represented, and the lay element is not absent, and everyone will admit that subjects such as this should be approached with technical knowledge, which we can hardly in proportion muster in our Debates in Committee in this House. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Knox) said that he is not a Member of the Grand Committee. That would not prevent his Amendment being moved by some other Member who approved of it; and it is the infallible practice of the Committee of Selection, with whom rests the responsibility of constituting these Committees, to appoint additional Members who are specially interested in any subject, and one of their methods of arriving at a decision is noticing in whose name Amendments are down, and who in the House have shown special interest in, or objection to, the measure to be discussed by the Committee. So I apprehend the Members for Ireland will not find themselves excluded from this Committee in proportion to their numbers. The hon. Member (Mr. Knox) also did not disguise his determination to extinguish this Bill by other means than by mere argument and opposition. He openly declared his wish that the proceedings in the Grand Committee on Law should be so protracted as to prevent this Bill getting through, and there can be no doubt that his threat was intended to deter the Government from proceeding further with this measure.

It was not intended as a threat. I merely say that the Bill would be likely to be disposed of quicker in Committee of the whole House than in a Grand Committee.

The hon. Gentleman told us what would take place in the Grand Committee, and left us to infer what would take place in Committee of the whole House, from the number of Amendments which have been put on the Paper. On that I will say no more. I am far from desiring to limit the power of hon. Gentlemen if they set themselves to the task to make it difficult to pass even the most useful legislation. Their power is great, but possibly it may be found to be a little diminished by the fact that some of the discussion will go on in the Grand Committee. I have been reminded, however, that there is a fourth stage of this measure, when it is not possible for hon. Gentlemen to speak more than once on each Amendment. I do not wish to under rate the gifts and experience of hon. Members opposite, and if they are going to set themselves to work to lengthen the discussion on the Report stage that opens a prospect which I, as the Minister in charge of the Bill, cannot look forward to with agreeable feelings. But that is in the future, and I hope at this stage hon. Members will not oppose the transfer of this measure with respect to which they have safeguards both in the House and before the Grand Committee.

I have for four or five years occupied the position of Chairman of one of these two Grand Committees, and I have, therefore, gained some experience of the way in which they do their work. I yield to no one in my admiration of the manner in which that work is done; but I must say that a great deal depends upon the character of the Bills that are submitted to the Committees. Bills involving some technical legal question or some mercantile point, on the principle of which the House is agreed, can be dealt with much better, so far as details are concerned, by a limited body of experts. There are several reasons which point to the advisability of Bills of this kind being referred to the Grand Committees. First of all, the Members of the Grand Committees do not vote on party lines; secondly, they always hear the arguments, and last, but not least, their proceedings are very rarely reported, and Members, having no temptation to play to the gallery, generally make their speeches short and to the point. But Bills of a party character have no place in those Committees. Who would think, for instance, of referring to a Grand Committee the Irish Local Government Bill, the details of which, as well as the principle, are of a highly contentious character, and ought not to be withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the House? Then there is a third class of Bills, of which I think this is one, which are not exactly party Bills, but involve very strong feeling and very strong animus on the part of a section of Members of this House; and experience shows us that this class of Bills ought not to be referred to Grand Committees. The Home Secretary will remember that three years ago an Employers' Liability Bill was referred to the Grand Committee on Law Bills, and we were engaged upon it de die in diem for about a month. When the Bill came to the House there was a complaint both on the side of the employers and workmen that the details of the measure had not been fairly discussed and the result was that the Bill was strangled at the Report stage or Third Reading. The right hon. Gentleman has never tried the experiment of bringing that Bill before a Grand Committee again. The present Bill is one of no complication whatever; and a simpler Bill I do not think I ever read. It consists of two or three clauses, and there is nothing to call for that minute, careful, professional discussion which would take place in a Grand Committee, and there are several special reasons why it should not be referred to a Grand Committee. One is that the principle has not been discussed at all in the House, and I never knew a case of a Bill referred to a Grand Committee in which the principle had not been carefully considered. Then, with regard to the right to move Instructions, it seems to me that if the hon. Member who desires to move an Instruction has to take the chance of the ballot for an opportunity, the right to move an Instruction becomes a mere farce. Upon the general principles that I have endeavoured to lay down, I think this Bill should not go to a Grand Committee; but whether it should go to a Select Committee or not is another question. Meantime I would venture respectfully to make the suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman that he should undertake to omit Ireland, and then, if he sent the Bill to a Committee of the whole House, it would pass in a couple of hours. I am strongly in favour of the Bill, and anxious that it should pass into law, but I see clearly that if it be referred to a Grand Committee, in which, of course, there is no such thing as Closure, the chance of passing the Bill this Session will be very small.

When the learned Attorney General brought in this Bill I felt the greatest objection to it, and I was surprised that there was no discussion on it, as it was not sprung as a surprise upon the House. I understood the Attorney General to say that there was, in his belief, a universal feeling among the highest legal authorities in favour of the Bill; and though I view the Bill with the greatest anxiety, lam bound to say that so far as my knowledge goes there is a very large majority of the legal profession with a strong prepossession in favour of it. I have heard it stated that one of its effects will be that more convictions will be obtained than is now the case. I believe that is so, though I do not oppose it on that ground. Considerable weight is to be attached to the objection that in a Grand Committee the debates on the Bill will not be reported, for it seems to me we ought to consider to whom the measure will apply. Will it apply to the whole community or to the poor and ignorant members of it? If there is a Bill which of all others will unquestionably affect the poor rather than the rich it is a Bill of this kind. I regret exceedingly that anything should have been said against the administration of justice in Ireland, but I conceive that that is a reason for keeping the Bill in this House. I ask the House to consider what the Grand Committees are. I notice that the right hon. Member for Denbighshire (Mr. G. O. Morgan) spoke with admiration of the way work is done in Grand Committees. I have served upon two of them, and on those Committees there were few practising barristers or solicitors, and those who were Members were seldom present. They are excused attendance on Committees because they are practising lawyers, and yet the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House tells us that the presence of these lawyers will be a guarantee of proper discussion. This question should be discussed by lawyers and largely by men who are not lawyers. In the Grand Committees on which I served we had to wait many days to get a quorum, out of 80 or 90 Members we could not get 20 present. The principal decisions were taken over and over again by less than 30 Members, and we never had 60 per cent. of the Members present. Again and again also we were out-voted by the Government, as will be remembered by those who were Members when the Bankruptcy Bill was under consideration. I want the House to consider that the questions would practically be decided by 25 or 30 Members, and yet if we were to try to raise the same questions on Report in the House, we should be met with the argument that the matter was fully and properly discussed in Committee, and that further discussion, in view of the large majority which decided the question, would be trifling with the time of the House. I believe the Bill cannot be effectively discussed by a Grand Committee, as it is not a question of detail, but one of principle. I believe the great mass of the people of England are in favour of the maintenance of the present system, and look with absolute horror at the introduction of the system in vogue in France and other countries, where it often happens that poor, dazed, half-educated women are subject to severe cross-examination without any proper protection being afforded them. But I do not believe the English Judges would allow this to go on, at any rate to anything like the same extent. Holding, as I do, that the great question in the Bill is the principle, I ask the Government not to send it to a Grand Committee, but, if they will not leave it to the House, to send it to a tribunal like a Select Committee, where the matter can be thoroughly discussed. I move to omit the words "Standing Committee on Law, &c.," to insert the words "Select Committee."

seconded the Amendment.

I am very glad the hon. Gentleman opposite declared himself a strong opponent of this Bill, because that probably explains the earlier part of his speech. His description of what generally takes place on Standing Committees must have struck with astonishment everyone who has taken part in the work of those Committees. It was an attack representing to the public these Committees as a perfect scandal, and as not performing their duties. The experience of everyone on those Committees has been exactly contrary to that of the hon. Member, and the only explanation I can give of the deserted state of the Committee when the hon. Member was present was probably that he addressed that Committee with the same tone and force as he addressed the House to-day, and it is possible if he was as accurate in his statements on that occasion there were members of the Committee who thought they had more important business elsewhere. The hon. Member declares himself an opponent of this Bill, and says it has not been discussed in the House. My memory does not carry me back to the number of times it has been discussed. It has been carried by both Parties in the House, and the majorities in favour of it show that it has been approved of on several previous occasions. While I give the hon. Gentleman credit for being able to add something novel to this Debate, I do not recollect that on previous occasions he used any arguments to show that this is a bad Bill. He speaks of the iniquity of allowing prisoners to give evidence. I should like to know how he voted when it was decided to allow persons to be examined at a private inquiry in Ireland in 1882 and 1887, and I should be surprised if he then thought there was any objection to allowing an accused person to give his own version of the case. The question now is whether this Bill is to pass or not. I regard this Committee as a fitting tribunal to take charge of the Bill, to discuss it, and to place it in such shape as would be acceptable to those on the Committee best able to decide. But there is an opinion opposed to that, view, and if you do refer the Bill, that course will not probably cause the Bill to become law. There will be the Report stage and the Third Reading, and I am so anxious to see this Bill in the Statute Book that I would earnestly ask the Government to see if they cannot make some concession, and I will briefly endeavour to place before the right hon. Gentleman some considerations for doing so. This Bill is necessary on behalf of justice and humanity. I am certain of this, that for years past—though our desire has been to administer justice fairly and purely—year by year innocent persons are convicted because they have not had the opportunity of stating the truth of their own case. We have admitted it in several cases, where we were creating new offences, or framing new procedure—in the Explosives Act, and the Criminal Law Amendment Act —we allowed the prisoner to give evidence.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is dealing with the general question of the principle of the Bill, and he is travelling beyond the limits of the Amendment now before the House.

I beg the pardon of the House for having travelled away from the question, but I was anxious to ask the Government to re-consider their determination of refusing to allow Ireland to be omitted from the Bill. Nothing is further from my mind than to cast the slightest slur on the administration of justice in Ireland. If it were suggested that Ireland could not be omitted without a slur being cast on the Irish Judicial Bench, nothing would be further from my intention. When I had charge of the Bill in 1886 I took that course and offered to strike Ireland out of the Bill, and my view was that there was not the slightest reason to suppose that any slur would thereby be cast on the Irish Judicial Bench or on the Irish Bar. But I did feel that there are different phases of advocacy existing in Ireland to those existing in England. That is not because any blame attaches to my brethren of the Irish Bar, but is in consequence of the difficulty of bringing the necessity of conviction home to the minds of Irish jurymen; and they have, therefore, become more persistent in their advocacy, and their cross-examination of every witness necessarily differs in degree from the practice in this country. If the majority of the Irish Members are opposed to the extension of the Bill to Ireland why cannot you say, "We will not refuse it to those who do want it, because of the objection of those who do not." I hope this will be no bar to the consideration of the question whether this Bill should be referred to a Standing Committee. This is not in any sense a slur passed upon the administration of justice in Ireland; it is simply intended to facilitate the passing of this Bill into law, so that the experiment may be tried in England; and if it be found successful, it may in course of time be applied to Ireland also.

The right hon. Gentleman has made a direct appeal to me, and I am unwilling for one moment to leave without an answer. He has urged that Ireland should be excluded from this Bill, and on two grounds: He has urged it, first, on the ground of Parliamentary time. He has told us that this is a Bill which is much required in the interests of justice in England, the there is an annual crop of false verdicts given in England, by which innocent persons are sent to gaol or to penal servitude for want of this Bill. If these are the blessings which would flow from this Bill I confess I should be very reluctant that they should not be extended to Ireland. Then the right hon. Gentleman said, having regard to Parliamentary time that the opposition raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite was of such a character that everybody knows, unless Ireland is excluded from the Bill the Bill can not pass. Well, I am not in a position to give a direct negative to that forecast. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that both the condition of the Notice Paper, what we have heard this afternoon, and the threats held out by the hon. Member for Cavan do not foreshadow a very cheerful prospect for those who have the conduct of business. If the right hon. Gentleman had rested his case upon the ground of Parliamentary time, I should have very little to say against the force of his observations; but he went further than that, and stated that there were methods of advocacy pursued at the Irish Bar which made it undesirable that this Bill should be extended to that country. I, of course, have no personal knowledge of these legal matters either in England or in Ireland. I have no personal knowledge, nor will the House take me as an authority on the proper method of conducting public trials or on the actual method in which public trials are con ducted on one side of St. George's Channel or the other. But I must say, from my knowledge of the gentlemen who conduct public trials in Ireland, and upon whom a large amount of criticism has been passed, that I do not believe that Irish advocates would condescend to use towards Irish prisoners methods that would not be adopted by advocates in his country. I entirely repudiate the view which the right hon. Gentleman has put before the House. However, I pass from that. The right hon. Gentleman believes that if this reference to Ireland were dropped the Bill would immediately pass into law without further difficulty. One right hon. Gentleman said it would pass in five minutes. I confess my information on the subject leads me to greatly doubt that. I believe if Ireland were omitted from the Bill on the ground that Irish counsel, Irish Judges, and Irish Magistrates are not fit to conduct their business in the same way as English Judges, English Magistrates, and English counsel—

I did not say that.

I know the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not say that; he confined his observations to counsel; but other hon. Gentlemen, speaking on the same side of the House with the right hon. Gentleman, did say so.

My argument was confined to the difference in procedure.

That is true of the hon. Gentleman; and I think the hon. Member for Cavan chiefly dwelt upon the shortcomings of the Irish Bench and the Irish Magistrates. But my own forecast is that if we omitted Ireland from the Bill, hon. Gentlemen from Ireland on this side of the House would oppose the Bill, and its passage would not be so easy as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury is at present disposed to think. However, I recognise that, after what has occurred, it is very improbable that with the time at their disposal the Government would be able to get this Bill through the House. I should therefore like to have a little further time to consider what the future course of the Government will be in reference to the Bill. But at all events, I may state that I do not propose to attempt to force the Bill through including Ireland; that proposal, after what has occurred, might result in our not being able to pass the Bill at all.

Do I understand that in any event the right hon. Gentleman does not propose to force the Bill through, including Ireland, against the wishes of the Irish Members?

No; not this Session.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if we are to understand that the Government maintain an open mind with regard to the advisability of including or excluding Ireland?

No. We recognise that in any case Ireland cannot be included. We recognise that it would be almost impossible by physical force to get it through including Ireland. We must remember the fact that, after all, there are only six days in the week, and only so many weeks in a Session.

I cannot help thinking that many hon. Members on this side of the House, and a great number of hon. Members on the other side of the House, will hear that statement of the right hon. Gentleman with great satisfaction. It is obvious that if the Government go on with the Bill including Ireland the result will be that as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury says, and as everybody who has attended to the question for many years knows, an experiment which, whether the right hon. Gentleman regards it as a beneficent experiment or not, public opinion in England desires to have tried will not be tried. I do not desire even for a moment to get on to the contentious ground of the Coercion Act; but I only want to make one remark. The right hon. Gentleman said it was hard that he should be asked to deprive Ireland of a change in the procedure which my right hon. and learned Friend described as a great boon; but that is a principle of his legislation, which he forgot with respect to criminal procedure in Ireland. But I do not want to put the case upon that ground. Nor do I wish to put it on the ground stated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury who objected to the extension of this Bill to Ireland on account of the difference that exists between Irish and English advocacy. It is not necessary, in order to justify the exclusion of Ireland from this Bill, to go into that. The sole direct ground on which, in the present case, I should press the Government to consider favourably the exclusion of Ireland is this: that it is desired to have an experiment tried in England in conformity with English opinion, but they ought not to wish to impose upon. Ireland a change which Irish opinion does not like.

I am a supporter of the principle of this Bill; but I shall strenuously oppose it if Ireland is omitted from its scope, and I believe that other hon. Members sitting near me will take the same course. It is all very well for the right hon. and learned Member for Bury to say that he did not intend the suggestion that Ireland should be excluded as any slur upon Ireland. But it would be a slur if a measure generally admitted to embody a desirable amendment in the Criminal Law should not be extended to Ireland. Having been engaged at the Irish Bar professionally for some years, and largely employed in criminal cases, usually for the defence, I can state that there is no difference as to the mode of advocacy between Ireland and England. There may be a difference in the circumstances to which that advocacy may be applied, but there is no difference in the method. The right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. J. Morley), who has just sat down, has had some experience of how trials are conducted in Ireland, having given evidence as a witness and having been cross-examined for several hours; and I was glad to note that he was very careful not to rest his argument on any such ground. Lord Coleridge, speaking on this very Bill in the House of Lords, said that since the passing of the Prisoners' Counsel Act—

"Prosecuting counsel do now, in reply, speak with a force and energy and with a partisanship against prisoners which formerly, when there were no speeches by counsel for prisoners, they were not in the habit of doing."

Such was the Lord Chief Justice's comment on the methods of English advocacy, which do not differ from those of Irish advocacy. The newspapers from time to time report "scenes" in Irish Courts, which are calculated to give a false impression in this country as to how trials are conducted in Ireland; and injustice is done by them both to the counsel who defend, including hon. Members opposite, and to the counsel who prosecute for the Crown. It has been further suggested that there is a difference in the spirit governing the administration of the law in Ireland which would justify this exception being made in the case of that country. I have been engaged in many criminal cases, including about twenty cases of murder, during the last few years in Ireland; and I can say most positively that, if there is any difference, it is that there is a more sympathetic feeling towards prisoners in the administration of an Irish Court than in that of an English Court. I believe that a prisoner in Ireland gets "the benefit of the doubt" extended to him more favourably than in England. Lord Morris mentioned to me to-day that he was 22 years on the Irish Bench, that he tried numerous criminal cases, and that there never was a single prisoner executed who came before him. I venture to say that no English Judge who has been on the Bench for the same length of time could say the same thing. I most respectfully repudiate the suggestions which have been made against the Irish Bar and the administration of justice in Ireland. The danger which attends the administration of the law in Ireland is not partiality in the Judge; it is intimidation directed against the tribunal.

I think the House should not allow itself to be beguiled into a controversy as to how trials are conducted, and the respective merits of English and Irish advocacy. Let us look at this Bill as practical men. The question has not been discussed in this country with reference to Ireland, but it has been discussed, and discussed for many years, by the most eminent lawyers in this House and on the Bench, with respect to English trials, English jurisprudence, and English rules of procedure. A very large number, at all events, of those who know something of the administration of justice in this country are of opinion that if this change were introduced into the criminal system, some guilty persons who now escape would be convicted, and a great many innocent persons who are now convicted would be acquitted. Parliament itself has recognised it in two of the most recent and most stringent Statutes—namely, the Criminal Law Procedure Amendment Act and the Explosives Act. We want this reform in England. We have wanted it for many years. As practical men why should we not have the experiment tried? The right hon. Gentleman says it would take a great deal of time; it could not take a great deal of time. I venture to say that one single day's sitting in the Grand Committee would pass this Bill. It has already passed through the House of Lords; and it has come down here with the stamp of their approval. It has passed the Second Reading stage in this House. I believe one day in the Grand Committee, and possibly one night—no, not a half or a quarter of a night—spent on the Third Reading would put the jurisprudence of England and the English people in possession of a great boon which they desire and which they believe would promote the administration of justice. I appeal to the First Lord—I appeal to the Government—to pass a measure which I venture to say will be found to be one of the most beneficial which they have placed on the Statute Book during the present Parliament.

Before we lose sight of this Bill in Committee, I should like to make a last effort to obtain from the Government an express recognition of the principle which they have admitted, of the desirability of representative natives being added to the Indian Councils: This is the last opportunity that we can have of rectifying what I believe is a defect, and I hope that that defect may be rectified. Every single administrator of great experience who has held high position in India has now admitted the desirability of this change in our administrative system in that country. The change has been admitted as desirable in years long gone by, but opinion is now much more largely gathered together in favour of its adoption. Now, Sir, I believe there is one method by which this recognition can be at this stage of the Bill admitted. I do not suppose the hon. Baronet the Member for the Evesham Division of Worcestershire would raise any opposition to the recognition of this principle of representation which I seek to see admitted into the Bill. I was very grieved to hear in the Debate a few nights ago the remarks which fell from the hon. Baronet. He qualified the words which he had used, but he stated distinctly that in times of crisis and danger the natives of India were not, for ability and energy, able to take the place of Europeans. I would traverse altogether that statement. I think it is most unfortunate that an hon. Gentleman in his position and with his knowledge should have ventured to formulate such an opinion and to have expressed it in this House. He, I believe, was not present in those series of sad events which took place in 1857 in India. I think the country was unfortunate in his absence, and I think the hon. Baronet himself was unfortunate in being absent, because a man of his great administrative ability would in these serious occurrences have been of great assistance in the country; and, on the other hand—

I understand the hon. Member desires to move an Amendment to this Bill referring to the desirability of adopting the representative principle in the Councils. The Preamble is always taken last, in order that it may be in perfect consistence with the Bill in its final shape. The Preamble would not be consistent with the Bill in its final shape if amended as proposed, and therefore the Amendment would be out of order.

Is it within your knowledge, Mr. Courtney, that the Government have in three cases admitted the representative principle?

Order, order! That is in no way relevant.

I think this clause must be again postponed, as it is a Definition Clause, and there must be modifications made in it.

If it be a competent course it is desirable, as this is a clause that must be amended in a consequential manner, to bring up the Amendments on Report.

This is a Definition Clause, which requires modifications. As a rule, Definition Clauses are at the end of a Bill, otherwise you must have discussion upon them. Therefore, I think it had better be postponed; but I do not desire to press its postponement. One of the matters which we must discuss if it is gone on with now is Sub-section 9, which covers the word "Commissioners," as against "Councillors."

Order, order! It would be very unusual to postpone a clause again. It appears quite simple and not a disputed matter to make Amendments to a Definition Clause at a subsequent stage of the Bill.

I have an Amendment to leave out of this clause Sub-section 9. This raises the question as to whether the title in the burghs shall be "Councillor" or "Commissioner." The old term in all the Royal burghs, and in all the burghs, until I think the Police Act, was Town or Burgh Councillor, and this term is used in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. But the Council in a police burgh in Scotland is called a Board of Commissioners, and the members are named Commissioners, so that under the present position of things you have old Royal burghs with a population of 700—sometimes only 300 or 400—with Councillors, and large police burghs with Commissioners. I am a little doubtful whether, under the new clauses, even an old Royal burgh, except under the old Royal Burgh Charters, will not change its terms, and the members be called Commissioners. New police burghs of a population of 68,000 or 70,000 are very much more important than the old decaying and dying Royal burghs; and it is a point of honour among them that they have a right to the terms "Council" and "Councillors." I am glad to say we have carried our point so far that in future these large burghs will have a Provost, and Magistrates, and Councillors. If the Lord Advocate will give us any explanation why he should have the two phrases then, of course, I will not press my Amendment; but to place the large burghs under the Police Acts in the same position as Royal burghs as to name, style, and authority, is practically the aim and object of this Bill; and I do not see why we should retain both names.

In one sense this may be regarded as a verbal matter; but there is another sense disclosed by the speech of the hon. Member, that shows it is more important, for it touches sentiment. I believe myself there are sufficient reasons for keeping this designation. In the first place, it has become a perfectly well-known and distinct term in Scotland, because it is a term applied to bodies created under the Police Acts of 1850 and 1862, and has a distinct meaning. Having that meaning, it has not only passed into the ordinary language of the people, but has been over and over again adopted in Statutes. It is a convenient term, as indicating the fact that these bodies are acting under certain Statutes, and are not Town or Burgh Councils, in the sense in which these words are understood throughout the whole of Scotland. If there is any value in the distinction, it does appear to me that as a matter of convenience it ought not to be confused, as it certainly would be by the Amendment. For these reasons, I think the clause should remain as it is.

We must look at this matter practically. We are dealing with a Police Act and a Public Health Act, which is to apply to all burghs in Scotland, police, as well as to every other burgh in Scotland. We are conferring upon these burghs equal powers, and if we are going to have uniformity at all, why should some burghs call their Magistrates Commissioners, while others call their Magistrates Town Councillors? We are now attempting to introduce a uniform system, and give uniform powers in all the burghs in Scotland; and I do not see why, in the future, there should be in some cases the title of Commissioner, and in others the title of Town Councillor. It has been urged, as an argument for retaining the distinction, that these were introduced as Police Commissioners. They were introduced then, because their powers were of a very limited kind. They were only practically, police powers, and, therefore, had to be distinguished from Town Councillors, who had larger powers. But the object of this Bill is to bring about uniformity in local management, and I can see very great inconvenience in keeping up the distinctive terms. I hope, therefore, the Amendment will be accepted.

I take it that under the first Schedule we are repealing all the other Burgh Acts of all kinds, of William and all the other Sovereigns before Victoria. We are beginning again de novo. This is a Bill to consolidate, and if the Lord Advocate will kindly look at page 5, Clause 5, he will see that the words are—

"This Act shall apply from its commencement to every existing burgh; and (b) to every burgh created under this Act."

So that the Bill will affect every burgh now in existence, and every burgh that is created; and as you repeal all the other Acts—the Acts of William and others—all your old burghs, your Royal burghs, will be in the same position, and you will, practically, be taking away, under this clause, the title of Councillors from those burghs. I contend that small toy burghs, with only 250 or 270 inhabitants, ought not to have, as a matter of sentiment, any right to such a title when large burghs with 60,000 inhabitants are debarred from it.

I think that the office of Burgh Councillor or Commissioner should be aggrandised as far as possible. I would suggest that in all burghs in which the Chief Magistrate is called "Provost" the term "Councillor" should be used.

I do not see that any hardship would be inflicted upon anybody by adopting the term "Councillor."

Some difficulty may arise with regard to the title in cases where, as in my own burgh, they are governed by a local Act.

I sympathise a good deal with the Amendment, but I think it would be extremely difficult to carry out the change of name throughout the Bill. On the other hand, it would be easy to change the name afterwards by a subsequent Act if it is thought convenient to do so.

I think it is important to take the sense of the House upon the matter.

I would point out to the hon. Member for Caithness that if this Amendment were adopted it would, perhaps, involve five or six other Amendments.

Then I will withdraw it, and take a Division on an Amendment to another clause.

I now propose to leave out the word "Commissioner," and to insert "Councillor."

This is a clause in which certain burghs are exempted. Edinburgh, Glasgow, and some of the smaller towns are exempted, and a number of the smaller burghs wish also to be exempted. Perhaps, however, the best time to consider the matter will be on the Schedule.

Connected with this clause is one of the most curious features. These large towns, having fought against the Bill, now change their tactics. They desire to be exempted, and we are exempting them. Now they ask for the right to take any section or sub-section they think proper. I think their position ought to be either that they want the Bill, or that they be taken out of it altogether. I do not see any reason at all for empowering them to take just what they want.

In the Police Acts hitherto passed, there has been power of adoption, and the course seems to me desirable in the interests of all concerned. If any of the larger towns think that any particular section suits them or contains additional powers they ought to have, I think it is reasonable they should be permitted to adopt them without incurring the expense of coming to Parliament for a special Act. I, therefore, appeal to the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment.

This is a Limitation Clause. We have found lately that ladies are very useful as members of School Boards and in other capacities. They have been elected even to the London County Council. I want to have Home Rule, and therefore beg to move to omit the word "male," in order that duly qualified ladies may not, on no other ground than that of sex, be excluded from the scope of the Bill.

It appears that the object of this clause is, that where there are various jurisdictions in one burgh, for instance a Burgh Commission and a Police Commission, each with certain powers, they are to be united. The original clause dealing with this subject went very much further than the one now before us, inasmuch as, among other things, it determined how the union was to take place. I do not see how you can carry out the proposed object by the present clause. It seems to me to be very vague. I will take one of the places which will be affected by it. In the burgh of Thurso there are two classes of Commissioners—namely, the Burgh Commissioners who exist in virtue of the burgh being a burgh of barony, and the Police Commissioners. Now, the intention of this clause is that those two bodies shall be joined together. The wording is that—

"All the powers and duties already existing, or conferred by this Act in relation thereto, shall thereafter devolve and be invested in, and be wholly exercised by the Provost, Magistrates, and Town Councils or Commissioners as the sole Municipal Authority."

Now in a burgh of barony the Police Commissioners have the larger powers, and what I want to know is, after this clause passes, will the Police Commissioners be the authority, and the Burgh of Barony Commissioners cease to exist? Of course there is no Provost in the place. Take another case. There is the Royal Burgh of Wick and the large Police Burgh of Pulteney Town. I take it that they would not be merged. The people of Pulteney Town are under the impression that they will be merged with Wick against their will. There are a number of other burghs of the same character. The original clause had much more in it than this, and it seems to me was much clearer. The clause now before the Committee is somewhat vague, and I fail to see how it will act.

It seems to me that the original clause was a totally different one from this, because it dealt with combinations of burghs under a voluntary arrangement, whereas the present clause is only intended to secure that there shall be no conflict or complication of jurisdiction in a burgh. It seems to be obviously proper as a matter of convenience to the Magistrates and citizens that there should not be a double jurisdiction. Burghs such as the hon. Member referred to would come under Clauses 22, 23, 24, or 25. In the case to which the hon. Member referred, the effect of this Bill would be to sweep the jurisdiction into the hands of the Police Commissioners, and not into the hands of the Burgh Commissioners.

I have given special attention to this clause, as part of my own constituency seems affected by it. This clause has clearly the effect of merging various authorities over the whole of Scotland into one Municipal Authority. I do not think the clause will be found to contain anything at all objectionable.

I have in my constituency two burghs, the Royal Burgh of Wick and another one, Pulteney Town, which is governed by Police Commissioners. The people of Pulteney Town have taken counsel's opinion on this clause, and they have been advised that they will have to amalgamate with the Royal Burgh of Wick, and that they will cease to exist as a separate burgh. Well, they object to be coerced, and they want some definite and reliable assurance that amalgamation will not be compulsory.

The conclusion to which the hon. Member has come seems to be an extraordinary one. On the arguments used by him, such places as Portobello will be merged with Edinburgh and Govan with Glasgow.

When this clause is passed am I to understand that it will leave the burghs such as I have referred to at liberty to take advantage of this Act as they wish?

I do not see how you can force the combination of two separate burghs by this clause. I do not think the hon. Gentleman need have any fear on that point.

I suppose this is one of those clauses on which the Lord Advocate proposes to make an Amendment at a later stage.

That is so.

The object of the clause is to place Medical Officers of Health in the counties and in the burghs in the same position so far as qualification is concerned. Now, diplomas are granted for sanitary science, and we think it is desirable that the qualification should be amended. We think it would be better if the clause were delayed so that it might be re-cast with the object of placing the Medical Officers in the burghs and the counties on the same footing.

I agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken; and I think it is very necessary, in view of the difference that has been made in the examinations, that the qualification should be maintained.

I think it would be well if the Lord Advocate would consent to the postponement of this clause in order that the Medical Officers of Health might lay their objections before him. We have made great progress since 1862, and I think the Medical Officers appointed under this Act of 1892 should be at least on a par so far as qualification is concerned, with the Medical Officers appointed under the Local Government Act. In the small burghs it would be impossible to appoint highly-salaried men, who alone would be competent to discharge the duty of Medical Officers, and I think the clause should be altered so that the qualifications of the Medical Officers should be on a par with those required under the Local Government Act, and that the small burghs should be empowered to make arrangements with the County Authorities, so that one fully competent officer could cover a large area. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has his Amendment ready, or whether it might not be as well to postpone this single clause.

This is, to a certain extent, a question of procedure, and I do not think there is any ambiguity on the subject to which the hon. Member has referred. It may be in the recollection of the Committee that the Public Health Clauses of this Bill, strictly so-called, were strongly opposed by a certain body in Scotland and by some hon. Members of this House. It was thought desirable, in order to facilitate the passage of this Bill, that these clauses should be dropped, and the Bill was very carefully gone over with a view to select those clauses which were admitted by those interested to fall within the category of Public Health Clauses. The result was that the clauses with which the Committee is now dealing were selected, and I may say that the hon. Member for the College Division (Dr. Cameron) has accurately described the Amendments which the Government are prepared to introduce in this clause. The Amendments which the Government propose to make are entirely within the scope of what has been said, and hon. Members may rely upon it that they will not raise any matter other than what has been raised in the statement just made. I propose to bring them up on the Report stage, and I believe that the proper form is that the clauses should pass subject to that undertaking, and not that they should be postponed or reserved. Hon. Gentlemen who are interested may feel assured that their position will not be in any degree worse than it is now.

I have no desire to offer any opposition to the Bill, and what I would suggest is this: The hon. Member for Caithness has an Amendment on the Paper as to the qualification of Medical Officers; that might be put in at this stage, and that would give the sanction of the Committee to the Amendment. Then the right hon. Gentleman could make his modification on the Report stage.

I have a Petition from the Town Clerk of Musselburgh in favour of those Public Health Clauses being included in the Bill.

I have some Petitions in the same strain.

I have no doubt that most people in Scotland would rather have a portion of the Bill than lose it altogether, and it was with that view that we were prepared to consider the Public Health Clauses as a separate part of the Bill. I do not object to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member, and I will accept the Amendment.

No Amendment, has been moved.

signified that he moved his Amendment.

My Amendment refers to the size of the burghs to be affected by this Act, and I propose it at the request of one of the burghs which will be affected. I will read a letter on the subject which I have received from the Town Clerk of Clydebank, who says—

"Amongst the clauses of this Bill which have been postponed for further discussion is Clause 78, which seriously affects the burgh of Clydebank. The burgh was formed in 1886 with a population of 5,000, and rose to 9,998 at the last Census. We have not had many months to consider our position in regard to the management of the police force till a proposal is made to alter the law with the effect of throwing us back 20 years before we could again hope to manage our own police. Surely the population limit of 7,000 is a sufficient safeguard without further restrictions. It stands so in the Police Act of 1872 and the Local Government Act of 1889; and if burghs with a population of 7,000 have managed their police force satisfactorily in the past, and are to be entrusted with the same powers in years to come, there can be no good reason why burghs with a similar population, but which have not yet taken over the control of the police, should be debarred from so doing until their population reaches 20,000 at a regular taking of the Census. Assuming that you are taking an interest in this clause on behalf of other burghs similarly situated, permit me to suggest one or two alternative Amendments suited for burghs over 7,000, but which have not yet taken the police into their own hands: (1) Clause 78, page 33, line 5, delete 'And at the date of the passing of this Act maintained a separate police force, and of burghs which at the date of the last Census had a population of not less than 20,000,' or (2) Clause 78, page 33, line 7, after 'force,' insert 'or formed into a separate police district in terms of the County Police Act, 20 & 21 Vict., Chap. 72,' or (3) 'That the limit of population be 10,000, instead of 20,000 (line 8), and that Clydebank be scheduled as having a population of 10,000 at last Census for the purpose of the Act.' I shall be glad to furnish you with any information regarding this burgh which you may deem necessary; and trusting you may be of some little service to us with the least possible inconvenience, I am, &c."

The Amendment I propose would meet such cases as this, and I move to delete from the word "thousand," in line 5, to "shall," in line 8.

Clydebank is not the only place affected in this way. There are other burghs where a similar expression of opinion has been made, and the general feeling, I am sure, is that it is better for the control of the police to be as local as possible. Where the Burgh Magistrates have the control of the police, they find that they are more respectful; but when the police are under the control of the County Authorities, they are not so deferential to the Burgh Magistrates as is considered desirable. I would also suggest that it is a big jump all at once from 7,000 to 20,000 in the way of population; and if the Government cannot see their way to accept this Amendment, they might accept 10,000 as the population. With a population of 10,000 they ought to have the option of having their own police, and I think the jump from 7,000 to 10,000 would be fairer than from 7,000 to 20,000.

It is quite obvious that no figure which could be fixed upon would be altogether satisfactory, as populations will fluctuate. With reference to the suggested compromise of 10,000, I would remind the Commission that the figure 20,000 is a compromise. There was a proposal of 30,000, but it was put down to 20,000 by one of the Select Committees, and the reason for not putting it lower is that in regard to the administration of police there is a strong opinion entertained amongst those responsible for that administration that it is inexpedient to have a separate police force in very small communities, and that 20,000 is about the limit below which a separate police force should not be upheld, except in those cases where a separate police force has hitherto been maintained, as in many cases it has been in burghs of much smaller area and population. The limit of 7,000 is the old limit, and it is enforced only in burghs which, at the date of the passing of this Act, contained 7,000 inhabitants and a separate police force. But, as regards those which do not, it is considered desirable that a separate police force should not be set up afresh and maintained unless the population reaches so much as 20,000.

These small burghs have practically their own police. The question is whether it is to be a separate force with a Chief Constable. In all burghs they have their police force within themselves, and I do not think the matter is of so much importance as has been made out. It is inconvenient in very small burghs that you should have a separate force and a separate superintendent. I have not known that there was any trouble in arranging with the Chief Constable of the county to have a certain number of police subject to the orders of the burgh.

This is a very delicate question indeed, and the burghs have very strong feelings on the matter. One of my burghs, with between ten thousand and eleven thousand inhabitants, had given up the control of its police to the county, and, feeling very dissatisfied with the way their affairs were conducted, resumed control of the police. If the smaller burghs come under the county, they ought to be treated as a part of the county; but it seems that the County Council can make separate police districts of the burghs, and impose special rates. These burghs would be in a minority on the County Council when the question of special rating came up, and would not, therefore, be in a fair position. That being so, they should be absorbed into the county, and not created separate districts with special rates.

I cannot vote for the Amendment. My burgh of Renfrew, with a population of 7,000, has not only a separate police force, but a Chief Constable, and they set great store upon it.

I think with the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) that there is often great difficulty experienced in the smaller burghs, where higher rates have to be charged for a separate police force. I know several burghs where a special rate has been imposed, and it has given great dissatisfaction.

Perhaps the best way to meet the case of Renfrew as well as other burghs with regard to special rating would be to postpone the coming into force of the Act till the 1st January, 1893, which would give them time to consider what they would do.

I beg to move—

In page 42, line 7, to leave out the words "and to enforce payment thereof in the same manner as penalties."

This clause relates to the case of a man who accidentally injures a lamp. He is liable to be brought before a Magistrate and compelled to pay the amount of the damage. I do not object to that; but this clause confers power on that Magistrates to "enforce payment thereof in the same manner as penalties." This clause is taken from the Act of 1862. At that time imprisonment for debt existed; since then it has been abolished, and there is no imprisonment for a civil debt, but there is imprisonment for the enforcement of a fine. The preceding clause, 100, deals with the case of malicious mischief, where there is any fault. This clause deals with the case where there is no fault. The effect of my Amendment would be not to allow the Magistrate to enforce payment of the fine by imprisonment.

After consideration, I feel disposed to accept this Amendment. I think, however, to make the matter quite clear, we should add the words, "the sum shall be recoverable as a civil debt."

I beg to move, in page 42, line 7, to insert the words, "and the sum shall be recoverable as a civil debt."

I beg to move, in page 43, line 14, to leave out the words "occupier or occupiers," and insert the words "owner or owners." This is a clause which requires modification. The owner of common stairs and passages is required to put up lamps and light them with gas on the landings of houses with flats; and this clause compels the occupier or occupiers of such common stairs or passages to light and extinguish such lamps or lights at such hours as shall be fixed by the Commissioners by any bye-law or regulation, a fine of 10s. being payable for not doing so. I can quite understand the lights on a staircase coming under the control of occupiers, and that they should light them and put them out; but they may be away for a month, and perhaps during that time the gas is lit and goes on burning night and day, there being nobody to look after it. This is work which I think ought to be done by the Commissioners. The Commissioners may pass resolutions by which they will be able to clean and light these places, and then charge the occupiers of the house for it. I do not see why the owners of the front land shall be compelled to pay in respect of these passages, when they not only go to the back land, but go straight on. They then come to be thoroughfares, and the cost ought to be borne by those who take advantage of them. I think the clause as it is drawn now is very unfair to the occupiers. It places on them a burden that ought to belong to the owners or to the general ratepayers.

I hope the Government will accept the Amendment. The reasons which the hon. Member for Caithness has given show clearly that the clause will remove the responsibility which ought to rest with the owner. I am perfectly certain that under the clause as it stands the work will not be well done, and will not be effective.

This clause is expressive of the law as it now stands; it will not lay any additional burdens upon the occupier. If a passage, though used as a thoroughfare, is nevertheless private, then it will be a matter not for the Commissioners, but for the owner or occupier to look after the lighting. It will be noticed by the Committee that the first paragraph of the clause lays upon the owner the obligation of providing, upon requisition by the Commissioners, all necessary lamps and means of lighting, and the necessary supply of gas or other light; so that the proposition is this: that the owner, having done that, shall, in addition, have to come in the morning to clean, and in the evening to light, and at night to extinguish the lamps, and that these are not among the ordinary duties of the occupier. I appeal to the hon. Member on the ground that this is not an increase of the burdens of the occupier, and also on the ground of the obvious propriety of the provision in the clause, not to press his Amendment.

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman quite understands the effect of this clause. It, on the face of it, reverses what I believe has been the invariable practice in Scotland. In Scotland the occupiers provide the gas fittings, but the clause proposes that the landlord shall do so.

There is nothing to prevent the occupier putting up as many gas fittings as he likes.

I am afraid I have not made my meaning quite clear. What I say is that it is usual for the gas fittings to belong to the occupier.

Inside the house.

But here the first portion of the clause provides that the owner

"Shall provide all necessary lamps, brackets, and other means of lighting."

That has nothing to do with the inside of the house.

If it is not inside the house, why on earth should the occupier pay for it? This is a practical question, for the clause is intended to apply to tenements with 20 or 30 tenants. Now, how is it practicable, with this class of tenants, who occupy for perhaps only a few weeks or months, to come to an arrangement with them as to when the gas is to be lighted, when it is to be extinguished, and how the cost is to be provided? It is impossible.

The gas will be paid by the owner. There is no question in this case as to the owner or the occupier paying for the gas. It is a mere question of cleaning, lighting, and extinguishing the lamps.

I do not think that there is any necessity for this clause at all. I think it might be well left to private arrangement between the owner and occupiers, and I would, therefore, suggest to the Lord Advocate that he should take out this section altogether.

I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has not thoroughly mastered this clause. By a subsequent section he will observe that the cost of the gas, if there is an arrangement between the Commissioners and the owner and occupier, is to be borne by the occupier, and that the cost may be recovered by the Police Commissioners. Anybody who knows anything about these houses and their tenants must know that this is practically impossible—that the Police Commissioners could not go weekly and collect the cost in amounts of a few shillings.

The clause does not provide that they should.

I think it does, and in order that the Committee may understand it, I will take the liberty of reading the third part of the section—

"It shall be in the option of the Commissioners to resolve, on a Motion, of which due notice has been given, to contract for, or supply, gas or other light for such common stair, passage, or private court, and to clean, light, and extinguish the same by their servants, and recover the expense thereof to an amount not exceeding the sum of 20s. for each burner per annum from the occupier, or, if there are more occupiers than one, then proportionately, according to the number of the occupiers of any building to which access is obtained by such common stair, passage, or private court."

That seems very clear and distinct, but that is what I object to, because it is impossible for the Commissioners to accomplish it. The lighting of these common stairs, which are in one sense public thoroughfares, and in another part of a private building, ought to be laid upon the owner, and, if he likes, he can add so much to the rent of the house in consequence. I am surprised the Government should persist in refusing to accept the Amendment.

If the Lord Advocate will look at the sixth line of the clause he will see that it is incumbent upon the owner or owners to supply the necessary gas or other light which may be required. It is very clear that the owner or owners are to supply the light. Under the first sub-section of the clause the occupier or occupiers are required to do the cleaning and to light the gas and to put it out, but under the last sub-section the Commissioners can at any time supply the gas and do the cleaning, and instead of it being paid by the owner and occupier, it is all to go upon the occupier. So you propose by the first sub-section that the cost shall be borne by the owner; then, by the second sub-section the cost of the cleaning and lighting goes upon the occupier, and by the third you propose that the Commissioners can come in and say: "We will both supply the gas and the cleaning, and charge it all to the occupier." The whole of the burdens should have been shifted, not upon the occupier, but upon the owner. That is why I move to leave out the words "occupier or occupiers," and to insert "owner or owners." It would be difficult for the Commissioners to arrange this matter; it has been tried and found to be unsuccessful. It is very easy to place the burden upon the owners, and then the owners can raise their rents if they like for this extra labour you are putting upon them. I think it is a far better plan to lay the whole thing upon the owners and give him the control, with the Municipality; it is easier to deal with a few hundreds of owners than to deal with thousands of occupiers. I hope the Lord Advocate now understands the clause, and I hope he will give us some reason for refusing the Amendment.

I only rise to say that I think it will be much better to put the burden upon the owners, because that is the only means whereby the money can be collected.

This clause contains the most absurd and idiotic provisions I recollect in any Act of Parliament for a long time. We are familiar with the case of common stairs in the Temple, and I put it to hon. Members who have chambers in the Temple how, as occupiers, they would like the obligations put upon them to clean and light and extinguish the gas upon the stairs? Anything more inconceivably idiotic I never heard of in my life. The rational way of dealing with cases of this kind is that there should be some common property as in the Temple and Inner Court. The whole of this clause is a thing which is absolutely absurd and impracticable. It has been pointed out that there is an additional reason why nothing should be thrown upon the occupier, because in the last sub-section the Commissioners are empowered, if they think fit to exercise their powers, to charge as much as 20s. from the occupier for each burner. That is a most monstrous charge upon the occupier, and that is a charge not merely for the obligation which is thrown upon the occupier by the provisions of the section, but also for the whole of the gas which is consumed. There is absolutely no sense of propriety in this. I am told it was in the Act of 1862; I am astonished to hear it. I think the duty of lighting the gas at a particular time and putting it out at a particular time is a perfectly absurd one to throw upon the occupiers.

The Amendment is in line 14, to substitute "owner" for "occupier," but the suggestions have ranged over the 1st and 3rd sub-sections, and the references to the Act of 1862 have no connection with the provision here.

I may explain that I did not want to put so many Amendments on the Paper.

My proposal is that we consider this Clause in reference to the supply of gas, and that we bring up a Clause on Report. The Amendment does not raise that point. I will inquire if there is any reason for the distinction made in the Clause between the liability of owners and the liability of occupiers. While I cannot accept the Amendment—for I think it is reasonable that the owners should undertake the duty of cleansing, lighting, and extinguishing—I will undertake to re-consider the Clause.

I have no objection to passing over the Clause now; but it will be very difficult to carry out this method, if not utterly impossible.

In a building containing twenty or thirty tenements, and occupiers constantly changing, I do not see how it will be possible for the occupiers to hold meetings and come to arrangements for the lighting and putting out, &c. I should strongly recommend the withdrawal of the Clause now, and the introduction of a new clause.

The Clause is precisely the same as that in the Act of 1862, which has been attended with no inconvenience.

Because it has not been enforced. It is a question for the Commissioners to deal with. I hope my hon. Friend will divide on the Amendment.

Where the duty is laid upon the owners there will be no difficulty in the owners making an arrangement with the lighting authority or with their own tenants. The putting these words into the Clause is an entirely unnecessary interference.

Does the Lord Advocate propose to postpone the Clause, or to agree to it and modify it on Report?

It cannot be postponed at this stage; it must be passed or negatived. I would suggest that we pass the Clause now subject to an undertaking to bring up a clause on. Report dealing with all the points.

Let us divide on the question that the Clause stand, and if a new clause is brought up on Report we can then deal with that new clause.

There are two questions at issue—

I quite recognise that.

There is the question whether the occupiers should pay for the lighting, cleansing, and so forth, and whether the light should be paid for by the owners. I certainly think the Clause should be withdrawn, and a new clause brought up on Report.

It is really immaterial. I am quite willing to withdraw this Clause now, and I will propose a new clause on Report.

I hope the Lord Advocate will consent to the omission of this Clause. The 1st section proposes that the duty of sweeping and cleansing the footway in front of a dwelling shall rest with the occupier. Since the clause was originally drafted this question has been fully inquired into by a Select Committee appointed, I believe, to inquire into the Public Health (London) Act, and in the result a clause was introduced into the Act for London, under which the duty is cast upon the Local Authority. If the Committee will consent to the omission of this Clause 115, I propose to substitute the clause from the Public Health (London) Act, with the necessary alterations to make it locally applicable, whereby the responsibility for keeping the footway clear shall rest under penalty upon the Local Authority, not upon individual citizens.

I trust the Lord Advocate will favourably consider this proposal. The subject was much debated on a former occasion in this House, especially in reference to the clearing away of snow and so forth. Up to the present, the duty has devolved on the householder, but I think to the detriment of the community generally. The provision it is now proposed to re-enact was in accordance perhaps with the spirit of the time in 1862, but since then legislation has advanced, and the duty is now recognised as one for the Local Authority. My hon. Friend's proposal to take the clause of the more recent Act as a model is a reasonable one.

At the present time, the Commissioners under the clause have to keep clean the footway in front of unoccupied houses, but in front of occupied houses the duty is with the occupier. It is frequently the case after a fall of snow that while the occupiers do their duty, the Commissioners altogether neglect their share. Certainly, I think the duty should altogether lie with the Local Authority, following the principle adopted in London.

I can speak from some experience, and say the clause in the Act of 1862 has worked most unsatisfactorily.

I hope my hon. Friend (Mr. Morton) will not seriously object to the Second Reading. The object is simply to enable County Councils—and it is purely permissive—to assist in parochial inquiries. County Councils are anxious to have this enabling power, and the Bill has been introduced at their request.

I have no desire to oppose the wish of my hon. Friend, but, as I read the Bill, it simply allows the County Council to find the money, having nothing to do with the inquiry at all. However, Amendments may be brought forward in Committee, though it may be difficult, to find the opportunity for their discussion.

This is simply an enabling Bill to allow two County Councils to combine for the support of an intermediate school for the wants of two countries. The proposal is simply to do for the Intermediate Education. Act what the Technical Instruction Act of last year did for the Act of 1889.