The Act is straightforward and clear in its wording, but it seems to leave something unsaid in its provision for establishing the prisoner’s insufficiency of means to maintain his defence. The functionary who has to decide whether or not the prisoner’s poverty is genuine does not seem to be given any special standard by which to govern his decision. The responsibility of using public funds where there may be no real justification must influence him towards excessive caution. It would be better to make it perfectly plain what would constitute justification. A judge or quasi-judicial functionary, may be guided by his own intelligence, so far as he can apply it to the prisoner’s circumstances, but it may thus involve more time and consideration to arrive at a proper estimate of the truth than the case is worth. On the other hand, the prisoner and the police may, and probably do, conflict in their statements. What is to be done? There is no solution, unless it be, where the prisoner has got as far as quarter sessions or the assize, to set the man’s case back, pending the submission of an affidavit from a police officer deputed to make reasonable inquiry into the prisoner’s means and resources. Where there is no evidence of funds put by, an affidavit to this effect should satisfy the recorder, or judge, in the matter of providing for the defence. In a case where the prisoner requests legal aid in the police court, a similar principle could be applied. A police affidavit would be useful as a record. II. THE PERJURY BILL A short Bill “to consolidate and simplify the law relating to perjury and kindred offences,” to be known to future generations as the Perjury Act, 1911, has recently left the printer. Its sponsor is the Lord High Chancellor, and its provisions are not without interest to the general public. It is made up of nineteen clauses and a schedule. It is proposed to here transcribe it bodily. The Bill, after reciting the formula of Royal and Parliamentary enactment, runs as follows:-- =1.=--(1) If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury, and shall on conviction thereof on indictment be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years, or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such penal servitude or imprisonment and fine. (2) The expression “judicial proceeding” includes a proceeding before any court, tribunal, or person having by law power to hear, receive, and examine evidence on oath.