§ Order for Committee read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
§ MR. HADFIELDsaid, he did not rise 994 to oppose going into Committee, but simply to state that, in the first place, five years, the limit of inquiry now proposed, would be insufficient; and, in the next place, that unless the principle of exemption from punishment was extended to the perpetrators themselves of the crimes the truth would not be come at. He was no apologist for a man who took the life of another, but in these cases the man to reach was the briber of the assassin. The limitation of the Bill to outrages committed within the last ten years would prevent the investigation of matters about which valuable evidence might present itself. For instance, there had just appeared in the papers a case which had occurred in 1856, and of which a prisoner had just made a confession. The Commissioners would be stopped from inquiring into that transaction.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1 agreed to.
§ Clause 2 (Limits of Inquiry under Act.)
§ MR. NEATEthought that though the inquiry into the general effect of trades unions and that into the Sheffield outrages were both to be made under the Royal Commission, a proper distinction should be drawn between the two branches of proceeding. He thought that the Commission should be remodelled, and that there should be a Special Commission to make the subordinate inquiry. He would move an Amendment that the names of the Commissioners to whom it is proposed to give Parliamentary powers should be inserted in the Preamble.
§ MR. ROEBUCKreminded the hon. Member that this was not a Parliamentary Commission. It seemed to him that there was unnecessary confusion in the matter. A Commission had been appointed to inquire into trades unions generally. Then, beyond this, there was the particularise of Sheffield. This Bill proposed not only that there should be a general Commission, but that the Commissioners should appoint independent persons to conduct the whole or any part of an inquiry under the powers of the Act. But nobody knew at present who were to be the three Commissioners, and the question was, whether these Special Examiners should be appointed by the Secretary of State or by the Commissioners.
§ MR. WALPOLEexplained that the 995 object of having the Commission was to inquire into the subject of trades unions generally; but, as incidental to that inquiry, it would probably be necessary to Inquire into certain acts of intimidation that might have been practised by these associations. The clause, however, did not refer to this latter subject, but was confined to inquiries into outrages in Sheffield. The masters and men at that place wished for inquiry to clear up the question whether the trades unions were or were not guilty of these outrages. If the Commissioners wished to make similar inquiries elsewhere, they could only do so on having the sanction of the Home Secretary. If the Amendment were agreed to, the Commissioners themselves in a body would have to go to Sheffield, which would considerably increase their labour; but as the Bill stood, one or more Commissioners might go to Sheffield, or they might appoint an Examiner to go down and take the evidence. He would, however, consider whether he could not insert some words on the Report which would remove any ambiguity on the point.
§ Amendment withdrawn.
§ MR. GOSCHENproposed the omission of the words, "or wrong," on the ground of its indefiniteness.
§ MR. WATKINsaid, one of the complaints at Sheffield was of men's dinners being thrown into the fire. Now, acts of this kind did not amount to intimidation or outrage, but would come within the category of a wrong.
§ MR. POWELLsaid, that acts, which at first appeared mere wrongs, might turn out on further inquiry to be gross intimidation. He objected to the powers of the Commission being narrowed by the omission of the word "wrong."
§ MR. GOSCHENthought the Committee were bound to be most particular in the wording of the clauses, because the workmen were not represented in that House.
§ MR. ROEBUCKthought it desirable that the words should be retained on the ground that they embraced acts which could not be described as outrages or intimidation. He should not like to have his dinner thrown into the fire, and if such a thing were done, he should be anxious to find out the author. Moreover a workman often found it very hard to pay for his dinner.
§ MR. WALPOLEsaid, one of the things most complained of by workmen at Sheffield was their wheelbarrows being stolen, and he doubted whether such annoyances could be better included than under the term "wrong." In his opinion, the omission of the words would operate to the disadvantage of the workmen.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he could see no objection to the word "wrong." It was reported that the masters combined in refusing to employ members of trades unions. This was a great wrong, and perhaps it might be necessary to inquire into the conduct of both masters and workmen.
§ MR. SAMUELSONsuggested that acts of the kind alluded to might form part of the general inquiry; but that the Sheffield investigation should be limited to more serious offences.
§ MR. FOSTERsuggested that the words "unlawful act" would be better.
§ After further discussion, Amendment withdrawn.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsuggested that the power to extend the inquiry in exercise of the powers of this Act to any place but Sheffield should be omitted.
§ MR. WALPOLEsaid, it would not be desirable to preclude the Commissioners from extending their inquiry into outrages similar to those at Sheffield committed at other places. One principal object of the Bill, however, was to inquire into the particular outrages of Sheffield. He would frame an Amendment on the Report, which would, he thought, meet the objection. He now moved to substitute "ten" years for "five" as the limit of the inquiry of the Commissioners into cases of outrage.
§ MR. HADFIELD moved, as an Amendment, the substitution of "fifteen" for "five," contending that the longer term was necessary to cover the inquiry.
§ MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he thought his hon. Friend's object would be attained by leaving the limit as proposed, but inserting the words "without the written sanction of the Secretary of State," in the second section of the clause, which would enable the right hon. Gentleman to extend the inquiry over any period that might be necessary.
§ MR. WALPOLEbelieved, that the limit of ten years was sufficient, being anxious to confine the powers of the Commissioners to such a period as both workmen and 997 masters were inclined to agree upon, instead of pushing it back to a time regarding which differences might arise.
§ Amendment (Mr. W. F. Forster) negatived; Amendment to substitute "ten" for "five" agreed to; words "with the written sanction of one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State" inserted; a further Amendment, to add the words "at the request of the Chairman of the Commission" (Mr. W. E. Forster) agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
§ Clause 5 (Indemnity to Witnesses.)
§ MR. HADFIELD moved to omit from the clause the words in lines 32 to 38, which except from the indemnity the actual perpetrators of the offence.
§ MR. ROEBUCKsaid, the actual perpetrator of an outrage might be only a poor, ignorant, wretched creature, who was incited to do the deed by somebody else, who was the real criminal. Bearing that in mind, how would this clause, as it now stood, work? At Sheffield, a man's house was blown up, and although a very large sum was offered, they could not discover the offender, because there was only one person who really was the criminal, and he would not give evidence against himself for any sum of money. The consequence would be that if they allowed the words excluding the perpetrator from the indemnity to remain in the clause, neither the real perpetrator himself, nor the person who had incited him to the act, might be discovered. But he was informed, on very good authority, that if they pardoned the actual perpetrator of that crime, the latter would come forward and tell them who had instigated him to commit it. He therefore suggested that the clause should undergo amendment in this respect.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, the question was as to whether they could permit a man voluntarily to announce himself as a criminal, and thereby exempt himself from punishment?
§ MR. POWELLcited the general Act, relating to corrupt practices at elections, wherein it was provided that all persons giving evidence fully and truthfully were to be declared exempt from punishment on account of any acts which they might then admit. As exemption was given in this general Act from the consequences of confessed crimes, he thought a special Act of the nature of that before the Commit- 998 tee should surely contain a clause of exemption; and he also thought that the exemption, if given, should cover all crimes confessed, whether great or small. Their object was, not so much to get at the actual perpetrators of past crimes, as to know how to prevent their recurrence in future.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER,speaking as a resident magistrate of Yorkshire, objected to the proposed Amendment, on the ground that, as the police had not given up all hope of discovering the perpetrators of the Sheffield outrage, it was unwise to give them an opportunity of coming forward and saying, "I did this crime, and now you cannot punish me."
§ MR. BARROWsaid, it was essential that the actual perpetrator should be indemnified, if they wished to get at the real truth of the matter. The real perpetrator of the offences committed at Sheffield was the briber rather than the actual offender.
§ MR. ROEBUCKthought it very remarkable that those who desired, above all others, to punish the offender in a special case, were endeavouring to make the inquiry totally inefficient. Without complete indemnification, the Bill would be totally useless, in his opinion.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, the police were on the track of some of the men who had perpetrated these outrages, and might discover them; and therefore it would seriously interfere with the course of justice, if they allowed this Amendment to pass.
§ MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that his object was that no punishment at all should be administered.
§ MR. GOSCHENremarked, that in that case the hon. Member desired to compound with justice, to let off criminals, in order to get evidence upon a political question.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, there was a manifest difference between an inquiry into the question of a crime with a view to punish the criminal, and an inquiry into the existence of a crime for the purpose of ascertaining, if possible, its connection with certain economical principles. In the one case, it would be manifestly absurd to offer pardon to the criminal, if he would but confess; in the other case, truth, and not punishment, was the object. Having carefully considered the question, it appeared to him that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) was right, and that the objection made to the course 999 which he suggested must be made subordinate to the important purpose of having the real facts of the case elicited for the information of the Commission.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERwas surprised to find the Home Secretary, who was responsible for the peace of the country, and also the Attorney General of England, approving of an Amendment, the object of which was to give a power to acquit the perpetrators of a crime who should come forward and make a clean breast of it, simply because they wanted to ascertain facts to guide them to legislation.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the hon. Member's argument would have some force if the inquiry was got up in order to screen criminals.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, the House should consider what it was asked to do. Examiners were to be appointed by the Commissioners, and they were to have power to pardon murderers. That was the most extraordinary legislation he had ever heard of since he had had a seat in that House.
§ COLONEL WILSON-PATTENcontended that the real question was whether one criminal should be let off with a view to putting an end to a series of dreadful outrages. For his own part, he was of opinion that the object in view could be best secured by the adoption of the Amendment.
§ MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) was under a curious misapprehension. He had stated that it was proposed to give power to the Examiner to let a criminal off. Nothing of the kind. The Act of Parliament said that if the man did so and so he should be pardoned, and not the Examiner.
§ MR. THOMAS HUGHESdesired that there should be a full and searching inquiry, and he was convinced that the result would be to show that several of the outrages had not been committed by trades unions or any person connected with them. He hoped the House would not agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERasked the Secretary for the Home Department how it came to pass that he had changed his views on the question at issue since the drawing up of the Bill?
§ MR. WALPOLEreplied, that when the proviso in question was inserted in the Bill he entertained grave doubts as to whether indemnity should be granted to the actual 1000 perpetrator of the outrage. It had since been represented to him, however, that if that were not done the inquiry would be so hampered that it would be impossible to arrive at the real state of things. He had therefore come to the conclusion that the best course to adopt was to support the Amendment, believing that that course would enable the Commissioners more readily to ascertain whether the charge brought against the trades unions was or was not true.
§ MR. AYRTONthought that the power of committing any man, if he declined to answer questions put to him, was objectionable. The Commissioners might ask a man who was concerned in the outrage if he had had a share in it, and if he declined to answer he would be committed, while, if he did answer, he must of necessity criminate himself. The principle was contrary to the one always adopted, and had no precedent in the administration of justice in this country.
§ MR. ROEBUCKthought there were some Gentlemen who were strongly inclined to support every proposition tending to render the measure abortive. If a man were asked whether he had blown up the house he would, if innocent, at once reply in the negative, while if he were guilty he could still toll the truth and claim to be indemnified. It was the man's own fault if he refused to answer, and, as none but the guilty would make such a refusal, he could not see any force in the objection.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALalso reminded the House that inasmuch as the Act sought to gain an open confession, the perpetrator of the outrage could claim an indemnity on acknowledging his guilt. If a man, therefore, refused to answer the questions of the Commissioners, he fully merited his commitment.
§ Amendment agreed, to;first and second Provisoes struck out.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Remaining clauses agreed to.
§ In reply to Mr. AYRTON,
THE SOLICITOR GENERALstated, that the persons committed to prison under the provisions of the Bill would not be committed for a longer time than until the end of the Commission.
§ Preamble amended and agreed to.
§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Thursday. [Bill 58.]