§ On the Order to go into Committee on this Bill.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)Since this matter was last before the House I have looked into the question raised by the noble Marquess, and I adhere to the view I then took that there is power under the Bill to compel the attendance of witnesses and to insist on the production of documents. This power arises from a statute passed for the express purpose of giving a Commission power to-compel the attendance of witnesses both, in foreign countries and in the British Colonies, and that statute will apply. I feel satisfied I am right in that view, and I will only say that I think it would be a very serious thing to proceed over the head, as it were, of a self-governing colony and to interfere with the administration of justice in that colony without first informing them. Even if I were wrong in my view I do not think it would be desirable to put an express power in the Bill. It has been suggested that difficulty and delay might arise through the colonial Legislature not being in session. Even if that were so, I think the delay would be far less an evil than an attempt to do what might create dissatisfaction in the Colonies. I gather that the noble Marquess will not persist in his objection to proceeding with the Bill?
§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPONOn the legal question, of course, I accept the opinion of the learned Lord on the Woolsack. I wish, however, to say that I did not propose that the authority of the local Legislatures should be overruled by this Act. All I did was to ask what would be the course required to be taken if a Sub-Commission went out to South Africa.
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived. Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX, having been suspended), Bill road 3a, and passed.
§ House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow half-past Ten o'clock.