WITNESSES (PUBLIC INQUIRIES) PROTECTION BILL. (Hansard, 27 June 1892)

§ LORD HERSCHELL
My Lords, I have, of course, no right to address your Lordships further, inasmuch as this is merely an Adjourned Debate. I desire, however, to say that I am in a position to move an Amendment which, I think, will remove the difficulty that my noble and learned Friend (Lord Watson) had, 1908 and I should, of course, be willing to consider any other Amendment in Committee.

§ *LORD MORRIS
My Lords, I have no right either to address your Lordships, but, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a few words on the Motion that this House be now put into Committee. I have considered the position of the Bill, and, as my noble and learned Friend opposite proposes an Amendment which, to some extent, meets some of the objections I made, and which my noble and learned Friend (Lord Watson) made, I do not propose to offer any further opposition to the Motion. At the same time, I am very glad that I did oppose it on Saturday, because the pushing of Bills of importance at this stage of the existence of Parliament has, to my mind, now almost reached a scandal. My opinion, as a recent Member of your Lordships' House, cannot be of as much value as that of others, but I am glad to find in the Times this morning a very good summary of the reasons assigned by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Herschell) against passing Bills of importance at this stage of the Sittings of this House. At the same time, the noble and learned Lord stood in a very difficult position, for in about five minutes after he had delivered—I will not say that lecture, but that expression of opinion, he immediately—

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon; I must rise to Order; he has already spoken and divided the House. My noble and learned Friend will wish to answer what he is saying. At a further stage of the Bill the noble and learned Lord could speak, but I think he is out of Order at present.

§ *LORD MORRIS
I thought I was speaking by permission of the House.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
I have no wish to prevent the noble and learned Lord from speaking, but after my noble and learned Friend has admitted that he could not speak, it would not be possible for the noble and learned Lord either.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)
I had supposed the noble and learned Lord had requested the 1909 leave of the House to withdraw his Amendment.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
My Lords, in order to meet the point raised by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Watson) I propose to leave out the words in line 13 "in respect of the nature, quality, and character," and to insert "on account."

§ LORD WATSON
That completely obviates my objection.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I cannot forbear from saying that, if the objection was a good one beforehand, I cannot see that the Amendment makes much difference. It enumerates a number of causes in respect to which the question may arise, and if words so general as "on account" comprehend, as I think they do, all the other causes, I do not see why a general word, which comprehends all the other causes, is better than the enumeration of the particular causes.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
The point is this. It was suggested that saying that you were not to do something "in respect of the nature, quality, or character" were broad words which might possibly be held to cover your doing it in regard to some act which the witness admitted in his evidence he had done, which, of course, was not intended; but, if you say that it shall not be done on account of the evidence he had given, that cannot be held to cover your doing it on account of some act he did.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
But which he disclosed in the evidence he gave.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
Yes. You would not then dismiss him on account of the evidence he had given, but on account of the act he had done, which, 1910 if it were a sufficient ground for dismissal, you would be justified in doing.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
My noble and learned Friend (Lord Morris) took exception to the burden of proof being thrown upon the person who was charged by the words, "unless it is shown to have been given in bad faith." I myself have no feeling about the onus of proof, and I am quite willing to alter it so as to remove that objection, and to make it read "unless such evidence was given in bad faith." I think that would be better, because the other mixes up the means of proving it with the offence, which I think is not so good. I would only point out, as a mere matter of drafting, that I think those words would come in better after the word "shall" and before "be guilty of a misdemeanour," instead of being connected with the words that immediately precede; therefore, I propose the Amendment in that form.

§ *LORD MORRIS
Now I believe I am in Order in making a few observations to your Lordships. I have not stood in the way of my noble and learned Friend, the patron of the Bill, getting it into Committee; but I was about to say that I quite acquiesce in the very trenchant language used by him on Saturday, and by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley), as regards passing Bills of importance at so late a stage of the Sittings of the House. Lord Herschell is reported in the Times to have 1911 complained of the course taken with regard to this Bill. It was a Bill which ought not to have been delayed till practically the last day of the Session, because it was one on which their Lordships might usefully have been occupied. It was eminently a Bill which, in the language of Lord Selborne, ought to be considered in detail by the Standing Committee. Yet the Lord Chancellor proposed to rescind the Order to send it to a Standing Committee, so that practically their Lordships were asked to consider the provisions of the Bill on Third Reading. He protested against such a method of dealing with an important Bill, all the more as it had not been shown that delay would work the slightest public mischief. The Earl of Kimberley was almost as strong in his language. He— Denied that there was urgency for the Bill, and said it was extremely wrong and inconvenient, as well as inconsistent with due respect to the House, that they should be called upon at the last moment to pass an important measure. My Lords, these were all observations addressed to the Accumulations Bill — a Bill dealing with property. My objections and my protest applied to a Bill of far greater importance, because it deals not alone with property but with personal liberty. Notwithstanding, however, the position in which the House has been placed by the Bill having been only brought forward substantially on Saturday, I do not choose to take upon myself the responsibility of the Bill being defeated, and accordingly I have allowed it—so far as I am concerned, and the noble Lords who would be disposed to support me—to go into Committee, and now it stands for Third Reading. My Lords, it has had one useful lesson. The independent Peers in this House on Saturday outvoted both the Government Bench and Her Majesty's Opposition, and an independent Peer in the person of Lord Denman; and it is an inducement to noble Lords, I think, on a future occasion not to allow Bills of this kind to pass without protest at all events. I myself was very much influenced in not wishing this Bill to pass without being sent to the Standing Committee, or a Law Committee, by what happened to the National Education Bill for Ireland—a Bill of the greatest importance to Ireland, and in 1912 regard to which everybody was assenting to Amendments as being necessary to prevent its being an imperfect measure. Notwithstanding that, we were told that if there was the slightest amendment of the Bill it would fall to the ground. My Lords, I was anxious to have made a few remarks upon that Bill, and if there is any Member of your Lordships' House, who may be supposed to have some sort of legitimate claim to do so, I think I would be the person, as I am the only Member of either House of Parliament who is a Commissioner for National Education in Ireland to whom this matter is entrusted; and I was anxious to show that the alleged pledges made were inoperative, and would never bring a deserving body like the Christian Brothers within the purview of the Bill. In regard to this Bill, I do not like it as it is, and I have already put forward several objections to it which weighed with the great majority of the House; in fact, the accident of another Peer being present, and even voting for the Bill, would have negatived it. But I am not sorry at the result. I have no anxiety to accommodate gentlemen in straits in dealing with the labouring classes, in the North of England or elsewhere, in trying to draw the trail across the scent of the flowers of the labour question by diverting their attention from it to an interference with this House in a matter which it is supposed will be of advantage to the labouring classes. I shall not facilitate them; and that is an element in my withdrawing my opposition to the Bill proceeding. Under these circumstances I do not propose to do more than protest.

§ LORD HERSCHELL
My Lords, as it is rather important that this measure should go down to the other House, I do not propose to enter upon a detailed examination of what my noble and learned Friend has said. He seems to be gratified that a number of Peers succeeded in overcoming the Opposition on Saturday; but seeing that the Opposition consisted of two, he did not exhibit any unparalleled strength on that occasion.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, before parting with this Bill I must say that I do not think it is in a condition in which it ought to be passed; but I do not deny that the subject deserves consideration and treatment, and, inasmuch as it does not apply to the ordinary Courts of Justice, but it is limited to evidence given under the authority of a Royal Commission, a Committee of either House of Parliament, or any other public statutory authority, I do not think it is likely to have any great operation between this and the next Session of Parliament; and, if it is supposed to affirm the principle that witnesses ought to be protected in giving evidence which they are called upon to give, whether they like it or not, I should approve of that. I do not like the mode in which the Bill is passed; it seems to me to leave a great deal too much to the first authority who is to deal with the matter. My noble and learned Friend (Lord Morris) truly said, in the earlier part of the debate upon the subject, that the magistrate might inflict a fine of £10,000, and there is no power to put him right. I do not mean to say that it is very probable that that would happen, nor do I suppose my noble and learned Friend meant to say that it would; but that, I think, is a sufficient indication of the mode in which the Bill is drawn to show your Lordships that it has not been a very well-considered measure in its details. Who is responsible for that I am not prepared to say. I know my noble and learned Friend will say that the Bill was supported by the Government. I can only say that the form of the Bill appears to me objectionable, but I do not think it will do any harm between this and the time when it can be amended, and I am reluctant to put any difficulty in the way of affirming a principle with which I heartily concur.