PARLIAMENT

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3170, 22 August 1917, Page 6

PARLIAMENT

THE FINANCIAL DEBATE

DEFENCE MINISTER REPLIES TO CRITICS MEDICALLY UNFIT MEN THE ALLOCATION OF COMMISSIONS Hie Legislative Council met at 2.30 P-m. yesterday. Leave of absence for ono week was granted to the Hon. Captain \V. i). J-J. Baillie. STANDING ORDERS. SIR IRANCiS ]>LLL moval, m acwilli jiolice, that landing Order 205 should bo amended bv tho insertion of the words "or amended bv" alter "initiated in." The dicet of the -amendment wouikt be vo uako it ckar that tho Council lad power to suggest amendments in Bills containing money clauses that had come irom uie I'ouoe cf liepresentatives. Tho (Suggested omtiid-meut-j would be primed in antique typo and would not be insisted fpon the Hon. U. SAMUEL supported the amendment, which was adopted. JURIES ACT AMENDMENT.. Ihe Hon. J. MACXJ REGOIf. moved the second reading of the Juries Act Amendment Bill, providing that in criminal cases the verdict of three-fourths of the members of a jury should count as the verdict of the jury in the event of failure to reach agreement. He said that the proposal was one of a group of proposals lie had placed before .Parliament twenty years earlier. Most of the other reforms suggested by him had already become law. He felt confident that he would receive the support of ;i majority of the members of the Council for h:s present Bill, which he regarded as a very important amendment of criminal procedure. The Bill probably would not reach the Statute Book during the present session, but he w-ould produce the Bill again in later sessions. The Judges of the Supreme Court had given their opinions on his proposal, and those opinions had been laid on the table of the Council. The Chief Justice approved of tho change, and pointed out that only in the British Empire and certain parts of the United Slates was unanimity of the jury required in criminal cases. Sir Eobert Stout believed that a three-fourths verdict would be proper. Mr. Justice Denniston said that the demand for unanimity was "unreasonable and unjustified, and the cause of repeated failures of justice." Sir Joshua Williams had been strongly in favour of a three-fourths majority. Four of tlio Judges were in favour of the proposal contained in the Bill, and three were opposed to it. Mr. MacC4regor quoted authorities in support of his Bill, the first being dated 1730. He traced tlie historical origin of the jury system in detail, and read statements 011 the subject by American Judges and others. Mr. MacGrcgor spoke for an hour and a iiaif. The Ifon. O. SAMUEL said that he wished to speak regarding the Bill, but would require a considerable amount of time. He therefore moved the adjournment of the debate.

The motion was carried, and the Council rose at M 5 p.m. '