Orders of the Day — ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [Lords].

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at on 27 July 1923.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Dennis Herbert Mr Dennis Herbert , Watford

At any rate that does not alter the basis of my argument, that there were many cases before the War in which the right of trial by jury had nothing to do with the liberty of the subject, or had any constitutional importance. I know there were opinions expressed by Judges and others that the law with regard to the right of trial by jury did require some modification and that is so now. Hon. Members may agree or they may not, but the main point is after all that this is a matter for Committee. The question of the right to trial by jury in important Measures is not at issue or brought forward in this Clause, and it is preserved. All the change suggested by the Clause as it stands is a change in the right of trial by jury in comparatively unimportant matters, and this has been urged upon us before the War by Judges, barristers, and laymen, and therefore I think it is a matter which is very properly dealt with under this Clause. That being so, I do ask the House not to accept the Motion for the rejection of this otherwise extremely useful Bill on the ground that there is in it a Clause which deals with trial by jury, not in those important cases which affect the liberty of the subject, but in comparatively small and unimportant cases, from the point of view of general principle, whatever they may be from the point of view of the particular individual. Those are points which can perfectly well be dealt with in Committee; and I think I am right in saying—in fact, I know I am right—that the criticisms as to the actual provisions of the Clause which have been brought before the Attorney-General have been met by him With a great deal of consideration and sympathy; and we know that we may rely upon what he has said, and that he will listen and receive with consideration all the arguments and considerations put forward for Amendment of the Clause. I ask the House to remember that there is no question whatever at issue as to the right of trial by jury so far as that is one of the treasured liberties of the subject and that you have here a most useful Bill which will save trouble, expense and annoyance; and to accept the Bill on Second Beading without hesitation.

amendment

As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.

Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.

In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.

The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.

Clause

A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.

Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.

During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.

When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.