SECOND READING. (Hansard, 2 May 1892)

§ (12.25.) MR. YERBURGH (Chester)
In moving the Second Reading of this Bill I may mention that an understanding has been arrived at with the hon. and learned Member for Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) by which with the assent of the Government if the House will give a Second Reading to this Bill and to the Bill introduced by the hon. and learned Member, the two Bills shall be referred to a Select Committee. I do not think it is necessary for me to trouble the House with any detailed reference to the provisions of the Bill. As the House knows it arises out of recent proceedings upon a breach of privilege, and the firm conviction in the minds of myself and my friends that distrust has been aroused among the working classes as to the power of Parliament to protect those who give evidence in a Parliamentary inquiry.

§ (12.26.) DR. TANNER
This Bill, I understand, is the issue of the proceedings arising out of the wrongful dismissal of the man Hood, who gave evidence before a Committee, and was, for so doing, dismissed from his employment by an hon. Gentleman, a member of the Conservative Party, and other Directors of the Cambrian Railway Company, and for which the hon. Gentleman and his co-Directors incurred most severe censure from the Chair.

§ (12.27.) MR. MORTON
I do not rise to make any objection; but I think it should be clearly understood that the Bill of the hon. Member for Hackney (Sir C. Russell) dealing with the same subject should also receive a Second Reading, otherwise we may find ourselves jockeyed after passing this Bill.

§ (12.28.) MR. BROADHURST (Nottingham, W.)
Before the Bill proceeds further, and not now objecting to the 1862 Second Reading, I think it is only right to say that very careful consideration must be given to Sub-section 1 of Clause 1 and the language therein used. The words are, any person who "dissuades, hinders, or intimidates," &c. These words are, I think, altogether too broad, because they would include people who legitimately object, or probably would object, to the inquiry by a Commission. I remember, in 1874, when the Conservative Party were in power, they proposed and constituted a Commission for the purpose of inquiring into questions which we, the organised Trade Unions considered had been inquired into and debated quite sufficiently, and we objected on reasonable and quite sufficient grounds to giving evidence or taking any part in the proceedings of the Commission. With the Bill in force leaders of Trade Unions, if they so acted now, would be liable to the penalties under the Bill. I do hope, if the Second Reading is now agreed to, care will be taken at a future stage to carefully consider the language of Clause 1, so that the Bill may not really do more injury than it will do good.