asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make any further statement with regard to the smuggling in Northern China to the detriment of British trade and finance?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received to his representations to the Japanese Government on the question of the growth of smuggling in North China; and whether he has been able to obtain an assurance from the Japanese Government that the Chinese Customs officers on sea and land will in future not be prevented from carrying out their duties without hindrance and without limitation on the arms they may carry for the purpose?

The situation in general remains unchanged. The reply of the Japanese Government was outlined in the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Mr. Chorlton) and the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) on 20th May. No specific assurance of the kind to which my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Moreing) refers has yet been obtained, but, as a result of further representations made by His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo, an official of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been sent to investigate the situation. I trust that the outcome may be that the Customs preventive services may once again be allowed to exercise their due authority in the affected area.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will inquire of the Japanese Government whether the increase of the Japanese garrison at Tientsin to 10,000 will be used to assist the Chinese authorities to prevent smuggling of goods into China by Japanese subjects?

I have no information on the specific point raised by my hon. Friend, but His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo has reported that the Japanese Government are calling the attention of the Japanese military authorities in North China to the whole problem of smuggling.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any alteration of strength of the Japanese garrison in North China has taken place since 1st May; and whether he can state the total number of effectives which the Japanese Government intend to keep there in the near future?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday on this point to a question asked by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) to which I have nothing to add.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how soon it is expected that the subsidised air service to Scandinavia will be in regular operation?

It is at present anticipated that the regular service will commence early next month.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many apparatus known as wind-tunnels are available to assist in the solution of aerodynamic problems and the testing of wing surfaces?

There are in all 14 wind-tunnels of various sizes and characteristics at Government establishments. Five of these wind-tunnels are at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, and nine at the National Physical Laboratory. With the exception of one tunnel at Farnborough they are equipped to take models only, not full-scale aircraft fuselages. There are also some wind-tunnels at the works of private firms, and at certain Universities.

Are any experiments in aero-dynamic problems being held up on account of the fact that there is only one full-sized tunnel available?

No, Sir; the provision is quite adequate.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many civil aviation problems are being held up on account of the fact that there is only one tunnel available? That is equally important, if not more important, than the military problem.

Perhaps the hon. Member will tell me what problems.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that he himself said that experiments on the dangers of the "Flying Flea," for example, could not be carried out owing to the fact that there was only one tunnel available?

We are in the midst of a very important programme at Farnborough, but, if a "Flying Flea" is sent, we will undertake to carry out experiments on it with the minimum possible delay. I would point out, however, that experiments on one "Flying Flea" would not apply to many other types of Flea.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air at whose request the African service of Imperial Airways terminated at Johannesburg instead of at Cape Town as formerly; and the nature of the co-ordination and financial association between Imperial Airways and South African Airways, Limited'?

The change of terminus was made in accordance with the wishes of the Government of the Union of South Africa as a preparatory step towards the introduction of the Empire Air Transport Scheme. The co-ordination between Imperial Airways and South African Airways takes the form of a close working arrangement which should ensure a satisfactory through service. This includes through bookings and reciprocal publicity as regards time tables. There is no financial association between the two undertakings.

Is it not the fact that the aeroplanes in use between Johannesburg and Cape Town are all of German origin?

It is an internal service operated by the Union of South Africa. They work in the closest possible co-operation with Imperial Airways.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the system known as provisional Instructions to Proceed, under which no price is affixed to air armament contracts, has yet been superseded by a more normal procedure?

The system of commencing work under Instructions to Proceed is still being extensively utilised in order to ensure that prices are not determined until all necessary data are available, while at the same time manufacture of urgent requirements is not delayed.

asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, for what purpose the plans he is now preparing and the rearmament programme of the Government are intended; and whether they are concerned solely with the defence of the shores or are intended to protect our interests in other parts of the world?

The object of the Government's plans was explained in Cmd. Paper 5107, and has been elaborated in detail in successive Debates. In reply to the second part of the question, the plans are devised for the protection of all His Majesty's subjects.

Are we to understand that the extended forces that are in contemplation are, in the opinion of the Government, adequate for the purpose?

The Government have made proposals which they asked the House to treat for the time being as adequate.

asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether any estimate has been prepared, or is in course of preparation, showing what forces are required for the protection of all parts of the Empire; whether, in the event of war breaking out simultaneously in the Mediterranean and in the Far East, adequate forces are available for the protection of our interests in China and the Dominion of Australia; and whether these matters are being considered in relation to the respective policies of isolation, of a military and naval alliance with other nations, or within the framework of the League of Nations?

All the aspects of Imperial Defence referred to in the question were considered when the Government's plans for re-conditioning the Forces were formulated, and are kept under constant consideration.

Are we to understand that it is in contemplation that, in the event of hostilities breaking out in any part of the Empire, for example in the Pacific, we can, in a state of isolation, undertake the task of defence?

I am not prepared to attempt to deal with a hypothetical question of that nature by the method of question and answer.

Is not the Defence programme itself based upon a hypothesis?

asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he can now state what steps have been taken to build up in this country a reserve of wheat sufficiently large to meet any contingencies likely to arise in the event of war?

The question of a sufficient wheat reserve will be considered by the committee which is now engaged in examining the whole subject of food supplies in time of war. At the present time, including the balance of the home crop, the wheat in public granaries and millers' stores and flour in the hands of millers, bakers and retailers, the effective stock of wheat and flour in this country is understood to be about equal to three months' consumption. This figure does not include wheat normally on passage, which might amount to a further month's consumption.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the congestion of traffic in the district of the Elephant and Castle and the difficulties experienced by persons residing at or near this junction in obtaining a conveyance to proceed to or from their employment during the rush hours of the day, he will make representations to the London Passenger Transport Board to continue the present tube system from the Elephant and Castle to Camberwell?

The London Passenger Transport Board inform me that on completion of the works at present in hand they will consider further the question of extending the Bakerloo Line to Camberwell.

Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation from the local council?

It would hardly be appropriate for me to receive it.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any further information regarding the fatal accident to Robert Percival Griffin, on 17th April, as he was riding a motorcycle and struck a heap of tar and macadam which had no red flags or danger signals exhibited near it; will he call for a report from the Lancashire County Council as to the absence of danger signals; and what steps will be taken to prevent a repetition of this accident?

I understand that the Coroner's jury returned a verdict of death by misadventure. I have been in communication with the county council and am informed that they are taking steps to ensure that in future their regulations as to the display of warning notices are strictly complied with.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is alleged that frequent complaints have been made against the non-provision of danger signals on roads controlled by the Lancashire County Council?

This is, of course, the responsibility of the local highway authority, but I was impressed by the suggestion of the hon. Member and made representations to them and received a satisfactory reply.

You accept that as satisfactory?

For the future.

asked the Minister of Transport the number of level crossings that have been abolished during the past 12 months; and the cost?

During the past 12 months three level crossings have been abolished and four other crossings, although not closed, can now be avoided by through traffic owing to the construction of bridges on by-pass roads. The total cost was £403,580. In the same period I have made grants to schemes estimated to cost £249,513 which will, in due course, enable two level crossings to be closed and two others avoided.

Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any special steps in view of the great danger?

The hon. Member will be aware of the encouragement I have given to highway authorities in this matter.

asked the Minister of Transport the number of men and women that have been examined for the driving test up to the last available date; and the number that have failed?

Up to and including 30th May, 316,886 persons have been examined, of whom 57,594 failed to satisfy the examiners. From 6th May, 1935, since when separate records for men and women have been kept, to 30th May, 1936, the figures are:

• Men examined, 234,827—Failed, 41,083 (17.4 per cent.).
• Women examined, 55,248—Failed, 14,094 (25.5 per cent.).

Do the right hon. Gentleman's records show that women examiners fail a smaller percentage of the people who apply than men examiners?

I should hope that both discharge their duties with precision and satisfaction.

Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate making any arrangements whereby those drivers who are prone to accidents shall be forced to go through some such test in the hope that they will be eliminated?

When this matter comes up for consideration and review my hon. Friend's suggestion will be borne in mind.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is able to report what progress is being made by the Transport Advisory Council in connection with its inquiry into the coordination of transport; and when a report from the council on this matter can be expected?

I imagine that such an investigation will be lengthy.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will give a list of the counties of Scotland which are getting more than 80 per cent. in respect of grants for trunk road schemes and a statement of the consolidated rates levied within those counties during the year 1935–36?

With my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the list for which he asks. As regards the second part of his question, I am sending him a copy of a return giving information as to the rates levied in Scotland.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, on the discontinuance of the block grant of £6,500,000 from the Road Fund, the new expenditure will have to include that amount or be additional to the normal maintenance?

The block grant will be borne on the Vote for which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is responsible. The position of the local authorities is therefore in no way prejudiced.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that his Department is now receiving complaints that on certain roads where there is no speed limit on the outskirts of cities motorists are travelling too fast, he can state which roads in the vicinity of North London are the subject of such complaints?

I will, with permission, circulate the names of the roads in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of persons who have been summoned for exceeding the 30 miles per hour speed limit during the past 12 months?

The latest figures available are for the year ended 31st December, 1935. During the year proceedings were taken in 77,365 cases for exceeding the speed limit of 30 miles per hour in built-up areas and in 1,899 cases for exceeding the speed limit of 30 miles per hour which is applicable on all roads to passenger vehicles designed to carry more than seven passengers. Detailed statistics of offences relating to motor vehicles can be found in the Return for 1935, which was presented to Parliament on 25th May.

asked the Attorney-General whether he has come to any decision on the question of proceedings arising from the report of the Budget Disclosure Inquiry Tribunal?

On a point of Order. I am in a difficulty, Mr. Speaker, and I want your Ruling. I am of opinion that it is out of order for the Attorney-General to make a statement at this time, that this House has a duty to discuss the report presented to the Government, and to take a decision of its own as to whether those who are affected by the report are fit to be Members of this House or not. We are entitled to have that discussion before we get a decision from the Attorney-General, because if he makes a decision in favour of the prosecution then we cannot discuss it. This House has a responsibility to discuss the report now, and take a decision.

That is not a point of Order. A question has been put to the Attorney-General, and he may answer it.

I have considered the question whether I should institute criminal proceedings under the Official Secrets Act against all or some of those affected by the findings of the Tribunal recently set up by Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921. I consider in the first place what evidence would be available in a criminal trial. This involved questions of some difficulty as to the admissibility and effect of statements made to that Tribunal by those whose conduct is in question. The House will not expect me to go in detail into the various legal considerations, but I may say that there cannot be an offence of receiving information under Section 2 (2) of the Act unless an offence of an unauthorised communication under Section 2 (1) is first proved. That unauthorised communication must, in my opinion, be deliberate. This is a point of importance, as under our law an accused is entitled to the benefit of every doubt, and if there were a doubt as to whether any disclosure was deliberate or inadvertent, the accused would be entitled to be acquitted.

I have also had in mind considerations based on the general principles on which criminal justice is administered in this country. Much of the relevant evidence in my possession was given by those whose conduct is now in question to a Tribunal with wide powers of summoning witnesses and calling for documents. I am not, of course, suggesting that in no case should a prosecution follow on the report of such a Tribunal, but it would be somewhat foreign to our general methods that information which results from the existence or exercise of wide powers of compulsory interrogation and discovery of documents of this kind should be made the basis of a subsequent criminal charge. There is a further point. In a criminal trial the fundamental principle is that the jury should act, and act only on the evidence called before them at the trial. It would, of course, in this case be impossible to obtain a jury who were not familiar with the findings of the Tribunal, and indeed with much of the evidence called before them. I have in these circumstances decided not to institute criminal proceedings.

Is the Attorney-General aware that in its findings, the Tribunal did not suggest that the disclosure of the information was inadvertent? They made no suggestion of that kind at all.

I was not dealing, as the House will appreciate, with the findings of the Tribunal. I was dealing with the evidence which would be available should criminal proceedings be instituted.

asked the Prime Minister what action he proposes to take on the report of the Budget Disclosure Inquiry Tribunal?

The Attorney-General's decision has cleared the way for the Debate too morrow. I understand my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Balham and Tooting (Sir A. Butt) wish to make personal statements at the end of Questions to-morrow, and they will be in their places for that purpose. I am sure the House will approve this course. In these circumstances, I do not think we should anticipate to-day the course of to-morrow's proceedings, but, in order to secure full range for the Debate, we will put on the Paper to-night a Motion for to-morrow in the following terms:

"That the report of the Tribunal appointed under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, be now considered."

I am concerned with regard to what would have been ruled out if the Attorney-General had taken a decision to prosecute. Have not the Government a responsibility, having appointed a Commission of Inquiry and got its report, to come forward and make recommendations regarding that report or regarding a decision arising out of that report? Surely the Government cannot walk away from its responsibility?

May I take it that the Prime Minister, following the statements which are to be made by the two hon. Members, will himself give his opinion on the subject of the report?

Certainly, I propose to take part in the proceedings, but I am quite certain that no Member of the House will desire to prejudge the statements that will be made.

Arising from the statement of the Prime Minister, may I ask whether he does not think that he, as Leader of the House, has a responsibility to make some declaration upon the findings of the Tribunal?

I am quite aware of my responsibility, and I shall do my best to exercise it in the way I think best.

I want to put a question, and I want an answer. Do the Prime Minister and the Government accept the findings of the Tribunal?

On a point of Order. I want to know whether it is in order for the Government to set up a tribunal and get its report, and then say that no decision can be taken until statements are made by those who have been accused and who have been found guilty by that tribunal?

No!

No point of Order arises.

It is a point of Procedure in regard to this matter.

There is a very old Rule of this House in regard to the Privilege which Members have.

Will it be in order to-morrow to move a manuscript Amendment to the Motion which is to be moved by the Prime Minister?

It will be in order to move an Amendment, but before I say that the Amendment will be in order I must see the Amendment.

If any decision is taken to-morrow by the House which goes against the findings of the Tribunal, what then will be the position?

We had better see what happens in the Debate.

It will be too late then.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 35, to leave out from "they," to "make," in line 36, and to insert "shall."

'Under this Clause the Import Duties Advisory Committee are given discretionary powers as to the admission into this country of goods intended to be used in scientific research or for the purpose of advancing any branch of learning or art. The Amendment is quite consistent with the idea of the Clause, because in paragraph (b) the words are

"goods are not intended to be sold."

I cannot understand how any discretionary question can arise. Let me give the Chancellor of the Exchequer an experience of my own with regard to the difficulty which some people have in bringing into this country articles which may be deemed to be necessary for the advancement of learning or art. The Import Duties Advisory Committee must be a wonderful body. They have to make decisions on all sorts of circumstances relating to industry, and here they are to decide on matters appertaining to the advancement of learning or art. There is a school at Rome, subsidised by His Majesty's Government—the British School of Art at Rome. There was a very brilliant student in London who won his scholarships and went to Rome, where he was an outstanding figure in the school. One of the most remarkable pieces of sculpture that I have seen was produced by this student, and he was anxious that the work which he had accomplished at the school in Rome should come to London. He approached the authorities here, but when it came to this country it was immediately put in bond. He wished this specimen of his work to arrive at the Royal Academy, but the authorities had great trouble in getting the figure taken to the exhibition, and immediately the exhibition was over it was put again in bond. He could neither take it home nor do anything with it, and this dear lady lay in the cellars of the Royal Academy under bond. He wrote to the proper authority to ask what could be done to release Venus, and was told that he had either to pay the tariff on this lady or re-export her to Italy, which would mean that the moment she was put on board ship and got to Italy, she would have to pay another tariff. She was therefore at sea. She could neither go to Italy nor come back home.

After much trouble and using all the influence we possessed we discovered that it was necessary to exclude the importation of sculptured works from abroad because there was a tariff against tombstones, and the difficulty was to know whether a genuine work of art was a tombstone or not. The lady was anything but a tombstone. It was one of the most beautiful things I have seen coming from British hands, but here she was in bondage at home, and her only hope of escape was to get to sea. Finally, we won a great concession and at last she arrived in this country and is living in London at the moment. I give this case to show how farcical the whole thing is. It is one of the most comical stories I know, and shows to what a farce this kind of procedure can reduce any country.

It is very necessary for the Government to take cognisance of the fact that we have schools abroad in which we are encouraging the study of art and that there should be no impediments standing between this country and the results of the work and research of those who go to those schools. If it is a matter of wishing to put up a tariff against foreign art, I can assure you that Mr. Epstein would have a heavy tariff against him so far as I am concerned, because what he is doing has nothing to do with the life of this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense!"] That might be a very good description of his works of art. It really becomes ridiculous when tariffs operate in such a way as to impede the free flow of anything that is for the advancement of learning in any shape or form. I should have thought that the Amendment we are moving would have been commendable to the Government, and that there would have been no question about the matter. These articles are not coming in to compete against the production of anybody else. They are articles for the advancement of the intelligence of the community, and there should be no discretionary power left to any advisory committee. After what I have said, I hope the Government will consider making it a direct mandate from the House that what seems to be useful for the advancement of art and learning shall come freely into the country.

I support the Amendment. As the Government in the Bill admit the case for these goods being duty free, why should they not accept our Amendment and use the word "shall" instead of "may"? The word "may" is far too indefinite, too permissive, and always leaves loopholes for escaping from any obligation. Surely the Committee ought to agree that these goods, which are not for sale, should be allowed to enter the country duty free? Every Government ought to encourage scientific research, because it is most important to us as a nation. Learning and art ought to be encouraged. Education ought not to be viewed as a luxury to be taxed, but as a necessity which should be made as free as possible. Sport is also mentioned in the Clause; we ought to encourage manly sport, particularly health-giving sport. If we believe that such things are beneficial to us as a nation, then let there be no obstacle placed in the way of their free entry into this country.

I venture to hope that the Minister may be able to accept the Amendment. If one looks at the wording of the Clause as it stands, and compares it with the wording of the Clause as we wish to amend it, I think it will be clear that there is no difference in principle. As it stands, the Clause provides:

"(1) If the Import Duties Advisory Committee are satisfied, on the application of the importer of any goods, that—

(a) the goods are intended to be used in scientific research, or for a purpose connected with the advancement of any branch of learning or art or with the promotion of any sport; and

(b) the goods are rot intended to be sold, or to be used for any purpose which is substantially a commercial purpose;"

the principle of the Clause being

"(i) that the goods should be allowed to be imported without payment of any duty to which this section applies; or

(ii) that, if any such duty has been paid in respect of the goods, it should be repaid on the exportation of the goods, or should be repaid whether the goods are exported or not;"

Looking at the Clause, it is difficult to see why the extra safeguard is necessary. In the first place the importer of the goods has to satisfy the Import Duties Advisory Committee that the conditions are complied with. The Import Duties Advisory Committee are then made judges, as it were, in their own case. If the Clause be passed without amendment, there will be the very curious result that after the importer of the goods has satisfied the Import Duties Advisory Committee that the goods come within the conditions stipulated in the Clause, the Committee will not be obliged to do anything. First they are made judges in their own case, and then they are allowed to decide for themselves whether the conditions are satisfied or not; but when the importer of the goods has proved his case up to the hilt, he has no right whatever under the Clause, except that, after the Committee have satisfied themselves that the conditions apply,

"they may, if in view of all the circumstances of the case they deem it expedient so to do, make a recommendation to the Treasury.…"

There is not anywhere in the Clause or in the Bill so far as I have been able to discover anything which defines what are the circumstances which ought to lead the Committee to "deem it expedient so to do." What the Amendment suggests is not that the decision should be taken out of the hands of the Import Duties Advisory Committee—for we are content that the decision shall be left to them—but that when the decision is left to them and they are satisfied, the principle adumbrated in the Clause shall be applied without any further saving Clause. There seems very little reason why the Amendment should not be accepted. I think that all the purposes which the Minister had in mind in drafting the Clause would be just as well served with the Amendment as without it, and with the Amendment people would at any rate have some idea as to what it is they have to prove in order to claim the privilege in the end.

Before I sit down I would like to tell the Committee of one instance within my own knowledge. I think hon. Members were interested in the instance given by the Mover of the Amendment about Venus, who found it so difficult to rise from the sea, and perhaps they will be equally interested in the instance which came to my knowledge, and about which I ventured to write to the Financial Secretary. It is the case of a refugee from Germany, a, man with a medical qualification in Germany who was prevented under the existing régime from pursuing his professional activities there, and who sought some kind of refuge, temporary if not permanent, in this country. He was allowed to come in with a temporary visa which, unless it be extended, will expire next week. When he entered the country six months ago he brought with him certain instruments. I need not specify precisely what they were, and there may indeed be some slight shadow of doubt as to whether or not they come within the Clause, but I think that the decision ought in the end to be that they do come within the Clause.

When he came, he was quite properly challenged by the Customs authorities about the instruments and he asked, "Do I or do I not have to pay duty on them?" The Customs authorities said, "We are not quite sure, and would like to consider the point." He said, "What can I do in order to have the use of them in the meantime?" He was told, "You may take them in, provided you deposit what the revenue authorities deem sufficient to cover the eventual duty, if duty is to be levied." He agreed to do so, and £150 was fixed as the amount of the deposit. He deposited that sum six months ago. I have made inquiries since and I am led to believe that the maximum duty which would, in any event, be payable on the instruments is £100, so that the amount of the deposit was amply sufficient to cover any charge which might eventually be made. The Committee may find it 'difficult to believe, but I assure them that the authorities have not yet made up their mind now, within a week of the expiry of the visa, whether duty is leviable or not on these articles, and, if leviable, to what amount. Refugees from Germany do not usually come here blessed with a superabundance of wealth, and probably a sum which is 50 per cent. more than any duty which could properly be chargeable—

Even if this Amendment were carried, I fail to see how it would meet the situation described by the hon. Member.

I suggest, with respect, that the whole difficulty arises owing to the fact that the Clause as it stands is discretionary, whereas the Clause as we propose to amend it would not be discretionary, and people would then have certain rights in this matter. Under the Clause, as amended, if a man, in those circumstances, satisfied the Import Duties Advisory Committee that his goods came within the description set out in the Clause he would be entitled to something, whereas, under the Clause as drafted, he is not entitled to anything. Even if he satisfies the Import. Duties Advisory Committee up to the hilt, then, over and above that, the Committee in view of all the circumstances of the case has to "deem it expedient" to exercise a discretion in his favour.

Will the hon. Member say what the instruments are? That seems to be relevant to his point.

I thought I had described what they are. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I will come back to that point in a moment.

On a, point of Order. It is relevant to the discussion to know what the instruments are. If they are not such as would conic within the provisions of this Clause, surely a discussion on them is out of order?

I said that the whole point about the delay was that the Customs authorities themselves held that the instruments might come within the Clause.

Not this Clause.

Well, the corresponding section in last year's Finance Act. The whole point is that in this Clause, which we are seeking to amend and which is a repetition of the corresponding section of last year's Act, the whole thing is discretionary. If the importer has satisfied the Import Duties Advisory Committee as to the facts and as to the articles being within the section, then he has no right at all unless the committee decide that it is expedient to exercise a discretion in his favour. We want to abolish that discretion. We do not want to take away the power of judgment from the Import Duties Advisory Committee. It is a very proper committee in the circumstances, to exercise it, but we say that in exercising it, they ought to test the evidence and ought not to do anything unless they are completely satisfied. Once they have been completely satisfied let us not add on some vague general discretion about the meaning of which there can never be any certainty.