The Government agreed yesterday to postpone this Vote, at the request of the hon. Member for Cavan, who desired to raise a question with regard to the drainage of Loch Erne. My hon. Friend has not been able yet to return from Ireland, and I do not think it would be reasonable to ask for any further postponement.

I regret that I cannot increase the sum, and the only course I can take will be to move a reduction. What I wish to say is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the course he has taken is hindering the development of free education in Scotland. He allocates this sum, which is equivalent to the English sum, on the theory that Scotland pays eleven per cent., so that this is eleven-eightietht of the English sum. Yesterday the First Lord of the Treasury stated, that this eleven per cent. had been generally accepted, and therefore he thought is ought to be inserted in the Bill. Now we have never had an opportunity of considering this question at all, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not appointed the Committee he promised to give, but has prevented the appointment of that Committee as far as possible. Finding it to be useless to expect the Government to give time, I took the opportunity of balloting in order to have the subject discussed in private members' time, thinking the right hon. Gentleman would gladly accept my aid; but he used the forms of the House to prevent my Motion coming on. I am not going to raise the question, except to say that I protest against this system being carried out on quite different lines from the hon. Member for St. Rollox. I have to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for this new method of bookkeeping, and I expect that if it is logically carried out then it will mean at least a million and a half of a saving to Scotland. The conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was rather unfair. He first got rid of a great deal of discussion on the Budget by agreeing to grant a Commitee of Inquiry, and he has put off on one pretext or another for two years the appointment of that Committee. Last year there was nothing done, and the Committee was never appointed; this year no Committee has been appointed; one hour's discussion has been given to the subject, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has prevented the Committee being appointed in private Members' time. Until that Committee has reported this system ought not to be adopted, but I am very glad that the general lines of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal have been adopted. I think that, by the national system of bookkeeping, by-and-bye we shall get one million and a half as the result of it. Unfortunately for Scotland, we are going to suffer because of the application of the principle here. I want to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer why it will seriously affect Scotland. The Scotch Office ex- pect an increase, and we have voted already Estimates for an increase, of three and a half per cent. of children in Scotland. The same Estimates in England are only in respect of a two and half per cent. increase. I hope and trust that, as far as England is concerned, the two per cent. is too low an estimate, and that at least three per cent. will be the increase; and that, in virtue of having free education, there will be a greater increase in the attendance of children in England, and that you may arrive near to our Scotch estimate. Then we shall have more money for Scotland, but I do object to and protest against the educational development of the more advanced country — more advanced simply because for three hundred years Scotland has had national education—being limited and controlled by the development of the less advanced country, and to our getting the money not in proportion to our own wants, but in proportion to the wants of England.

I would only say, in reply to the hon. Member, that I cannot accept his description of the course which has been followed in regard to the Committee as accurate in any degree. I have repeatedly expressed my anxiety to secure the appointment of the Committee, and not only that, but I have tried to induce Members on the opposite side of the House—I have tried to influence the Welsh Members—to withdraw their opposition to the appointment. Although this Committee has not been appointed, I must entirely disclaim any responsibility on the part of the Government. With reference to the particular night to which the hon. Member alludes, the discussion might have been complicated by the fact that his proposal is not the same as the Government proposal, because he proposes that it should be extended to Wales also; besides which, he himself will feel that it is an extremely late period of the Session to enter upon the subject. I regret that this important inquiry has not taken place.

I have to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he has been able to look at this question from our standpoint, and that he has, to a certain extent, gone beyond the position of last year. I think it is a fair sum, and I tender him my thanks that upon this question he has come to our view.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs for some explanation in regard to this item of £200, "Copenhagen, provision for chaplaincy restored under special circumstances," &c. This appears to be a new item in this Vote, and I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will give us some explanation why this sum is asked for, and why it is introduced by way of a Supplementary Estimate.

Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer the question as to why this Copenhagen chaplaincy is included in this Vote. The Royal Commission which inquired into the Civil Service recommended that the chaplaincies should be discontinued unless there were special circumstances to the contrary. Consequently, when the late chaplain at Copenhagen resigned his position for some other post, this amount of £200 was not again put into the Estimate. But since then a representation has been made to the Government that this church at Copenhagen, which the chaplain serves, had been raised at an expense of some £13,000 or £14,000 two or three years before, in the confident hope that the chaplaincy would be continued. The English community there is a very poor one, and it now appears that unless this amount is continued the church will have to be abandoned. It seemed a pity that so large a sum should be entirely lost, and I thought, under those circumstances, we should be justified in replacing the sum in the Estimate, and that it would fall within the special circumstances which were contemplated by the Report.

It is for an Episcopal Church?

Yes.

This appears to me like an endowment of a particular sect in a foreign country. If we were in the habit of endowing all the sects belonging to this country in foreign countries I could understand it, but why we should proceed at this time to endow a church to the extent of £200 I cannot understand. Surely, if there was any congregation at all, and any good feeling about them, they ought to pay their own minister and their own expenses with regard to the church. I am pleased to know that the Nonconformists always do that, and surely these Episcopalians should pay for their own services. If they cannot do so let them go to other churches in the country. There are Protestant services, I have no doubt, in Copenhagen, which would be good enough for these people; let them learn the language of the country, and then they could get on very well. I do not intend to move the reduction of the Vote, though I should like to if we had a proper opportunity of doing so; but I do say it is a very improper thing, especially after, as I understand, the Royal Commission have reported against it, at this late hour of the Session, and without any notice whatever, for the Government to take this money from the general taxpayers of the country, Nonconformists as well as Churchmen, for the endowment of an Episcopalian church at Copenhagen.

I should like to know whether this is an annual grant, or whether it is only for one year?

This will be an annual grant, like the other chaplaincies.

I must ask for some explanation with regard to this amount. There is a strong feeling among merchants and traders that we are not doing all we ought to do in order to have this country properly represented at the Chicago Exhibition. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will tell us what is being done under the increased grant, and whether the exhibitors from this country are satisfied with the way in which they are being treated. We ought to be properly represented at the Exhibition, in order to show our American kinsfolk what we can do in this country, and what we are prepared to do.

This Supplementary Estimate is brought in in consequence of the general desire that was expressed that more money should be spent in connection with English exhibits at the Chicago Exhibition. It was particularly impressed upon the Government that the charge which it was intended to make for space should be done away with, so that every inducement might be given to exhibit the manufactures and industries of this country. Of course, the sum that would have been received from the exhibitors for space would have been taken into account by the Commission as part of the assets, without which they would be unable to carry out the duties which devolved upon them. The Government decided to take notice of the strongly-expressed desire on the subject, and to increase the grant to £60,000, with the view of enabling the Commission to do without charges for space. Therefore, space will be allotted at the Exhibition to those who will undertake to properly represent the manufactures and industries of this country, and I have every reason to believe that this outlay will enable the Commission to secure good results.

I have to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the statement he has made, and I hope that the Government will do everything in their power to have the manufactures and industries of this country properly represented at the Chicago Exhibition.

I beg to move, as an Amendment, the reduction of this Vote by £2,741 12s. 9d., the amount of the loans under the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886. I am not prepared to agree to the granting of this money in consequence of the action of the Scotch Office. I say that the amount should come out of the savings of that Office.

How can these remarks apply to the present Vote?

They want to make good the loss incurred by the Scotch Office in connection with this matter.

No; these are repayments which ought to be made under the Act of 1887.

I say that this money should come out of the savings of the Scotch Office, and I object to Parliament granting it.

Order, order! That argument is not at all relevant to this Vote.

Then I will raise the question on the Appropriation Account. It is a matter of comparatively little importance when it is raised, as long as it is raised.

It cannot be raised now.

We ought to have some information before we vote this money. There is a loan of £2,198 14s. 1d. for land improvements in Ireland, another of £1,950 8s. for arterial drainage works in Ireland, and a third of £11,868 for the reclamation of waste lands in Ireland. I should be glad to know where this money has gone to. Has it been advanced to landlords and not been repaid, and is it, therefore, what is called "bad debts"? We are told in the daily and weekly papers, from which we have to get most of our information—we cannot get it from the Government—that the tenants in Ireland pay back the money they borrow, but that the landlords do not do so, as a rule.

Under the Statute the Government are bound to make provision for repaying to the Local Loans Fund loans which are irretrievably lost, so as to keep that fund solvent. The items in question are hopelessly lost, the security being exhausted, and there being no means of making it good.

Who are the borrowers?

The borrowers are both landlords and tenants; but these losses were incurred in consequence of legal decisions which were given in the Court of Appeal some time ago, and which have deprived the Public Works Commissioners of sums which they had every reason to expect they would recover. Those amounts, therefore, have to be made good. The smaller debts have been provided for; but the Commissioners sustained a serious loss of £100,000 in connection with a scheme of land reclamation which was undertaken in Ireland many years ago. If the attempt had proved successful it would have recouped the Public Works Commissioners the sum that was invested in the undertaking. Unfortunately, in the middle of last year the high tides of the river and a very violent thunderstorm caused a gap to be made in the embankment, and the whole of the land which was to be reclaimed was overflowed. That occurred, not owing to any engineering mistake, but through extraordinary circumstances which could not be foreseen or controlled. The question then arose whether the embankment should be re-constructed and another attempt made to reclaim the land, or whether it would be better to write off the loss and make good the money expended. After consideration, and taking the best advice, the Government came to the conclusion that they would not ask the Commissioners to enter into such a hazardous and speculative enterprise as the re-construction of the embankment and the attempt to reclaim the land, but that it would be better to sell the whole undertaking for what it would fetch, Rightly or wrongly — and I think rightly — that course was taken, and the undertaking sold about a month ago by auction for about £2,000. The speculation may prove a great profit to the purchaser, or a great loss; but the Commissioners have written off £100,000 as bad debts in connection with the undertaking. The present Parliament is not solely responsible for the investment, several Governments having been concerned in it. No doubt, experience has shown that it has been a very disastrous affair; but I think the Committee will be of opinion that the present Administration has made the best of it, and that they have adopted the course which, under the circumstances, was the best to adopt.

I am sorry that the Government have been so unsuccessful in regard to the undertaking; but I understand now that it is the result of a misfortune. I want to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer why these amounts appear at all. If there has been a profit sufficient to make good the bad debts, why does the right hon. Gentleman come to the country for this Vote?—that is, unless the profits go to the benefit of the Exchequer.

That is so. I should explain that these losses were formerly incurred without the attention of Parliament having been called to them. We therefore thought it right that Parliament should now be informed of them, and that it should be asked to vote the money that was lost in the undertaking.

But all the profits are accounted for?

Yes.

I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have given some explanation with regard to this £10,000. The only statement we have at present with regard to it is that contained in the footnote at the bottom of the page, which says—

"Further amount required, in addition to the amount to be recovered as salvage, to provide compensation to owners of animals slaughtered, for employment of Veterinary Inspectors and temporary travelling Inspectors, valuers, and other necessary expenses."

I think I can explain. The Committee will remember that in the first instance I asked Parliament for a grant of £15,000 for the purpose of dealing with the outbreak some months ago. Nearly the whole of that amount has been exhausted, and I am able to say that, although the disease had spread through a great number of the counties in England, and also in Scotland, it has now been reduced within limits so narrow that, if I were not afraid of speaking prematurely, I should have said we had nearly stamped it out altogether. That being so, and seeing that last time it cost no less than £3,000,000 to stamp it out, I think that the £15,000 has been well laid out. I am therefore most anxious, as the House is soon to be dissolved, that the Board of Agriculture should not be left in such a position that if, by any misfortune, there should be a recurrence of the outbreak, all the good work that has been done should be lost for want of funds. Although there is no immediate necessity for money, I thought it right to ask for this sum, and I hope that under the circumstances it will be granted.

Before we discuss this Vote, I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why it has been introduced? There was an understanding that no really controversial question should be raised at this stage of the Session; but this is a very important question, which is exciting a good deal of feeling in Scotland, and which will require to be discussed. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be wiser to withdraw this Vote from the Estimates and to postpone its consideration?

lam somewhat surprised that the point has been raised by the hon. Member, as we were asked some time ago for the money.

By a Commission.

My recollection is that it was by a Member of Parliament. This is part of the policy of the Government, and I hope the Vote will not be opposed. The hon. Member will remember that the Committee on Colonisation recommended further progress in order to meet the difficulties that existed

As this is the Government's policy as opposed to that of the Highland people themselves, I hope that the Vote will be opposed. We object to any scheme to induce people to emigrate when there is land in their own country which is open to colonisation. We would like to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money the Government are going to devote for the purpose of promoting a policy of emigration from the Highlands? £12,000 has been already spent, and we are now asked for £7,500 more. If emigration is to be carried out, why is it not promoted in the congested districts of the large towns, instead of in the Highlands, where there is not such a necessity for it? I do not blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for I have no doubt that he is bound to carry out the policy which is advocated by the Scotch Office; but the fact remains that, as regards relieving the congestion of the Highlands, the Government's policy has done nothing in that respect. On that ground, and upon many others I might mention if I were not anxious to save the time of the Committee, I think the Government's policy has been very undesirable. We were told that we were not to be asked for any more of these annual doles, and we were told also that the holdings which were left should be added to the holdings of those who remained. There has been no such addition made, and therefore the scheme of emigration is of no avail whatever.

I would just say in reply that it can scarcely be said that the £150,000 of public money is given out of the pockets of the taxpayers for this purpose, because the Colony is perfectly solvent, and gives a guarantee that every shilling of the £150,000 shall be repaid by the Colony itself. I would point out that the families have left because they believe that they will improve their position, that they will be more prosperous in their new homes; and if no more land has been added to the other holdings by the departure of these families, at all events the process must tend to arrest the process of sub-division which is so extremely hurtful to the general interests of the districts. As the Colonies are anxious to have these families, and as these families believe that it is for their interest that they should emigrate, I deprecate attempts at discussion. This policy has not been forced upon the Government by any Members of this House. In Glasgow—where funds were subscribed—and elsewhere, considerable interest was taken in the movement, and a Committee of this House took action in the matter, and practically endorsed their policy.

I fully understand that there was nothing more than a guarantee of expense in this matter; but my point is that the same guarantee and security for the return of the money could exist if the same arrangements were made at home. Then, with regard to the point that it prevents sub-division, I would point out that sub-division is already prohibited by the Crofters Act. So that argument has no virtue. And as to the fact that a certain amount of money was subscribed in Glasgow, I was told by an hon. Member of this House that he would do nothing of the kind again, and that he was led to subscribe in the first instance by false pretences. Then I must take exception to the composition of the Board of which the Secretary for Scotland is a member. I have a strong opinion regarding the propriety of an executive officer of the Government being a member of such a Board. The other representatives, the gentlemen from Canada, are the representatives of the land companies and the landlord class, and therefore are vitally interested in this proposal. Therefore on that ground alone we have a perfect right to scrutinise every penny of the money that is to be so devoted.

Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us whether a proportion of this grant is to be subscribed locally—whether this £2,500 is to be so subscribed in order to make up the £10,000?

I think not, Sir.

That is a point raised by my hon. Friend. This Committee was appointed upon the theory that a large amount of local money was to be subscribed—I think £2,000 of the £10,000—and on that ground they were to have control of it. Now, although they are not going to subscribe anything, they are still to have control. It seems to be another form of the jobbery the Scotch Office is endeavouring to perpetrate just at the close of Parliament. I have no confidence in the men who have been conducting the experiment in colonisation. On the two occasions they sent out emigrants to North America they sent them out at the worst possible time. There has been no application of brains in the carrying out of this work. If an important work had had to be determined, then, perhaps, that undertaking costing millions of pounds would have been spoiled in consequence of their folly, inability, ignorance, and the stupid manner in which they went about their work in sending people out at a time when the land could not be prepared for use. When the last grant was made we heard very conflicting accounts as to the condition in which the people who had been sent out were, and as to whether large numbers of them had not left their farms and holdings. The whole of one settlement of fourteen families in Manitoba were so dissatisfied with their treatment in going out, and with the holdings they received on arrival, that they left and got employment in the lumber trade. Thus there was a considerable loss, because money had been spent in procuring them waggons, cattle, and houses. We could not get anything like accurate information from the then Lord Advocate, and I put myself to the trouble of going over this North-Western Territory to look at these people and to come to a personal conclusion as to what had taken place. The result was that I gave evidence before the Colonisation Committee, to the effect that the men we appointed in voting this money had wasted; it that the people were sent out at a period which did not allow an important experiment to be associated with conditions that were conducive to success; and that we were consequently precluded from indications as to whether money could be devoted to such works or not. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says he has got the support of the Colonisation Committee. Yes, but that Committee recommended home colonisation as well as foreign colonisation. If our policy had been adopted these people would have been more prosperous and happy at home, and in time would have added to the trade of the country. They would have been a market for the produce of our towns. Instead of that they are away in Manitoba, while we have hundreds of thousands of acres lying waste. Instead of promoting thrifty colonisation at home, and so adding to the national wealth, you are sending it away, and the probability is that the same stupidity which marked the sending of the last batch will be renewed. The most important question the Committee had to consider was the congestion in all our large towns, and in that case it is not seven thousand pounds nor seven millions, but, according to the recommendation of the Committee, it is seventy or eighty millions that you require. This can only be an experiment, as the last one did not have a fair chance owing to the stupidity, of the mode in which it was carried out. I have no confidence that those in charge will do any better now, because they are very much like the Bourbons. They never learn, and experience does not teach them. What you want in relation to this subject is not a paltry seven or ten thousand pounds, but a well-matured scheme, one that the Government will be responsible for, and one introduced at a period of the Session when there is full opportunity for discussion. At this late juncture we cannot discuss the subject, but have to rush it through. I object to the money being spent, because I can see no earthly reason why it should be spent. I do not know what is the relative amount you are going to allot. The sum previously voted was not sufficient to give families a fair chance, and I think the Committee recommended that you should give a much larger sum. Is your present theory based upon £120, £140, or £180? How much per head have you estimated for? How many do you intend sending out? We have had no information from the Government as to the reason for asking for this small sum. How is it to be spent, and what do you expect to derive from it? Perhaps the Lord Advocate will give us some information, in order that the people who will be induced to go away may know that they will have a fair start in another country. Are you making preparations for the building of the houses before the people get there; are you going to carry out your scheme in a more rational manner than before; and where are you going to send the people—to Australia, Canada, or South Africa, or where? I think the House ought to have some information as to what you are going to do.

I can assure the hon. Member that the Government have been using this money very much, though not perhaps exactly, on the lines on which the previous experiments were made. The hon. Member asked how much per head was to be allowed. I think it has been found that the figure hitherto fixed per family was wanting in elasticity, because families differ very much in size, and therefore it is proposed to allow a sum considerably more elastic than the amount hitherto proposed for families going out. For example, if a family consists to some extent of grown-up sons, that fact, instead of being a reason for more is an argument for less money, because these sons are capable of contributing to the earnings. Some of the families which have gone out are getting on quite well on £100. On the other hand, I think the average is to be considerably more than £100—I think £150 or £157. With reference to the time and mode of sending out, I think the hon. Member will give the Government credit for endeavouring to send the families out at the best time. There are seasons when it is impossible to send colonists to Canada. At the same time, it is right that the money should be in the hands of the Colonisation Committee, in order that they may not be hampered when they see opportunity of carrying out the scheme. I think this is the first time I have heard anything of a proposal to colonise South Africa from the Highlands, and I think, therefore, the hon. Gentleman who suggested that was going rather beyond the sphere hitherto marked out. In the first instance, the colonists were sent to the North-West of Canada, and I think the success of the colonists who have gone there justifies us in adhering to it. It is quite true that in some cases families have found that they could do better elsewhere; that was only to be expected; but it is not in every case a loss of money to the Government, for there is increased security in the enhanced value of the holdings.

It must, in reference to what the Lord Advocate has said, be remembered that it was not choice that led the Scotch Office to Canada. There was a deliberate and systematic attempt made to try every Colony and every country in the world, and it was only when every other Colony refused to have anything to do with them that it was decided to send the colonists to America, so that what my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) said has not been answered by the speech of the Lord Advocate.

Under the circumstances, it is right that the Vote should not be passed without some strong protest. I consider that this question should be met by migrating people from one place to another at home, and by purchasing land for the purpose of settlement. The Crofters Act did not go so far as that, but you have not even given expression to the clauses of the Crofters Act. My hon. Friend's (Dr. Clark) reference to South Africa was justified, for I believe that there was not a single part of Australia, or any other part of the Colonies, in regard to which investigation was not made.

I do not think the Lord Advocate will get more than a small portion of the money devoted to the holdings which have been left. If you held these holdings until the districts developed you would get more. In the case of the large families with grown-up sons the Lord Advocate has referred to, he did not state that a large portion of the expenses is represented by the outfit of these sons, their passage across, the cost of the railway journey of 2,000 miles to the scene of their destination, and their maintenance there until they are in a self-supporting position. A scheme of this sort should come before us earlier in the Session, and then we could consider it. In its present form it is objectionable, and we ought, therefore, to oppose it.

I understand this Bill is a conglomeration of two Bills which have been referred to a Select Committee; but there are in the first clause some words which I do not understand. In line 7 occur the words "or pursuant to any statutory authority." I can understand the words "Royal Commission," or a "Committee of either House of Parliament"; but these words I do not understand, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to explain what they mean. They are not intended to apply to Courts of Justice; and if they are merely general words they are very dangerous in this Bill, and I move that they be omitted.

It would very much weaken the Bill if these words were left out. Before the Select Committee, which was unanimous in passing this Bill, this question was argued fully, and it was thought to be most desirable that it should apply to all such inquiries as are held by the Board of Trade referring to railway questions and other inquiries at which people in the position of railway servants would be called upon to give evidence. It was proposed by the hon. Member for Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) and the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Yerburgh) that this Bill should include such departmental inquiries as these. I hope this explanation will satisfy the hon. Member, and that he will not proceed with his Amendment.

I hope the House will pass this Bill in the strongest possible form. As a Member of the Select Committee which inquired into the hours of railway servants, I feel that it is very necessary that this Bill should become law. Had it been passed earlier it would have enabled us to get probably more accurate evidence, and better evidence; and I should very deeply regret if, especially from this side of the House, Amendments were moved to minimise the effect of this Bill. I fully agree with what has been said by the hon. Member opposite, and I think these statutory inquiries will be held more frequently in the future. It is of the utmost importance that the railway servants should have perfect liberty and freedom in giving evidence before inquiries of the kind which are included in this Bill, and I have sufficient knowledge of Railway Directors and of Railway Managers to know that this may be a matter of the utmost difficulty. It may be that that does not apply more to Railway Managers than to many other large employers; but I believe if this Bill had been passed earlier, the result of the Breach of Privilege Debate in the matter of the man Hood would have been very different from what it was. I trust the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.

These words give protection to persons who may give evidence before a very im- portant class of inquiry, and they were unanimously agreed upon in the Committee, because it was thought that this protection should be given. These words are looked upon as highly important by the class which would be affected by any inquiry into railway questions, and I do not see why any objection should be raised to full protection being given. The Courts of Law have power to protect witnesses who give evidence before them, and I do not see why witnesses who are called by the inquiries which are contemplated by this Bill should be deprived of protection. If these words were omitted the Bill would be of comparatively little use. I fail to see what is the ground of objection to these words, and I do not see why any class should be deprived of protection.

I can assure the hon. Member that I have not the smallest desire to exclude from the Bill the class of persons to whom he has referred, and I admit the reasonableness of what has been said, that all classes of persons should be protected in giving evidence. At the same time, the class of inquiries to which this Bill can refer is not large, and I think it would have been better if they had been specified. What I had in my mind was a totally different class of inquiry from anything that has been mentioned. We frequently have in Ireland Star Chamber inquiries under the first clause of the Crimes Act. Those hon. Members who were in the House in 1887 will remember the struggle we had with the Government over this clause, and how it was extended by our Amendments. I am anxious that the work that we then did should not now be all undone by a few casual words in a Bill of this kind. It is very desirable that witnesses should be properly protected, and I do not desire that even witnesses who give evidence before a Star Chamber inquiry should be molested, but I am very anxious that the concessions we obtained after hard fighting should not be swept away by a few words inserted in another Bill. I will look at the words again before the Bill reaches another stage, and I will now ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

There is one point I am anxious to raise on this clause. The Bill is one to which I have given some attention, on account of what took place upon the Select Committee on the Hours of Railway Servants, and I think it will be a very useful alteration in the law. The one point which I am anxious to bring before the House, with a view of obtaining the opinion of some hon. and learned Members who may have considered this subject, is this: Paragraph B of the second clause provides that any person

"who threatens, or in any way punishes, damnifies, or injures, or attempts to punish, damnify, or injure, any person for having given evidence upon any inquiry, or in respect of the nature, quality, or character of the evidence which he has given upon any such inquiry, unless such evidence is shown to have been given in bad faith,"

The right hon. Gentleman has raised a very important point, but he has learned advisers beside him who must be capable of informing the House how the matter rests. I hope if they are not satisfied that an action for libel would lie under those circumstances, they will make it clear that such would be the case.

I will look into the matter with pleasure if it be desired, but my attention has not been called to it before, my right hon. Friend only mentioning it to me just before he rose. The real answer is that the Bill does not touch that particular question. The law would not be altered in that respect by the Bill at all. Anybody giving evidence in a Court of Law is absolutely privileged, except in very rare cases, where a man goes out of his way and volunteers a statement which has nothing whatever to do with the case. The Bill leaves the law as it is. In answer to the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), I would say that if an action for libel lay before the passing of the Bill, an action would lie after it has passed. The Bill contemplates punishing persons preventing others from giving evidence. I will, however, look into the matter, and if there is any doubt it can be dealt with on Report. Words might be inserted to show that nothing in this Bill should affect any such right of action, but my impression is that there is nothing in the Bill affecting it.

I am sorry I was prevented by illness from being present at the Committee, and I shall now have to object to the first sub-section of Clause 2, as, in my judgment, it is too wide. That is also the view of a large number of working men who have had an opportunity of considering the question. I fear, as a layman, that Sub-section (a), as it stands, would cover the action of a committee of a trade society passing a resolution to the effect that it was undesirable that any members of the society should give evidence before an inquiry held under statutory authority, and make them guilty of a criminal offence. That is a position of things to which I hope the House will not give its sanction, and it is certainly wider than anything which was said in the course of the Cambrian Railway discussion some time ago. If the sub-section is persisted in, I shall have to challenge the question by dividing the Committee in reference to it. It would, as it stands, cover numerous cases before witnesses had even come to give evidence.

There is no Question at present before the Committee. It will make it more regular if the hon. Member will now move to omit Sub-section (a).

I move, Sir.

I think the hon. Member for Wansbeck has raised a point well worthy of consideration, but his Amendment goes too far. I admit that it is open to question whether the words "hinders or attempts to hinder" are not too wide. I can very well understand that hindering might be done by proper and justifiable persuasion which ought not to be brought within the purview of the law. I think that persuasion might be used quite as much in the interest of the workmen as of the employer. If the hon. Member would confine his Amendment to striking out the word "hinder," which has a doubtful meaning, I think that would meet his view, and we might discuss the matter.

May I point out that the word "intimidate" would be just as objectionable as the word "hinders," unless you define the term "intimidation." If I endeavour to persuade a fellow-workman not to give evidence it may be held in a Court of Law that I have intimidated him, and unless you define that term the word is as objectionable as the word "hinders."

The difficulty might be removed by taking the definition of intimidation as it is in the Trades Unions Act, where it is limited. I agree that these words are rather too wide. If you get rid of the word "hinder" you should also get rid of the word "prevent."

I do not think the general scope of the Bill is too wide; but I agree that these particular words are capable of misinterpretation. I would suggest that the question should stand over to the Report stage, so that the Attorney General may consider it.

The valuable part of the sub-section is that it would punish employers who prevented workmen giving evidence, and I think that side is as important as that put forward by the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Fenwick). A man might be hindered or prevented from giving evidence by an expression of opinion on the part of his employer; but that would not be intimidation as defined by the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt). I think we should endeavour to leave the subsection in such a form that it will prevent such action on the part of the employer, even by means of persuasion, which is very difficult to challenge in a Court of Law. As the sub-section stands, I think the committee of a trade society passing a resolution that it is inexpedient that any of its members should give evidence would come under the clause, and, therefore, I think it is too wide. But I should object to leaving it out altogether, and I do not think it would meet the necessities of the case to strike out "hinders" and "prevents" and to leave in "intimidate." There would be many ways, which could not be called intimidation, in which employers would try to prevent their workmen giving evidence.

I am surprised that the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Fenwick) should make this proposition, for one of the Bills referred to the Committee of which I was a Member was called the "Bill for the better protection of witnesses giving evidence on Parliamentary and other public inquiries." That Bill was backed, among others, by the hon. Member, and the second section of the Bill provided that whoever, without lawful excuse, should in any way interfere with any person so as to prevent, or with a view to preventing, such person giving evidence should incur the penalties provided in the Bill. That Bill proposed to make it an offence, not to intimidate or hinder, but simply to interfere with a person desiring to give evidence. The resolution of a trade committee such as has been referred to would be interfering, and would have come under the Bill. Hon. Members seem to think that while a body of workmen prevent other workmen giving evidence it is all right, but that it is all wrong when the employers prevent them. I think the principle in the hon. Member's Bill is the better one; but, at any rate, we should adhere to the sub-section as it stands, as I do not think anybody will be hurt by it.

I have listened to the discussion, and it seems to me that if we leave out the words "hinders, intimidates, prevents, or attempts to prevent" for the purpose of inserting the words "by threats or intimidation, prevents or attempts to prevent," that would meet the case. It would limit the offence to threats or intimidation, which are sufficiently defined, and the prevention or attempt to prevent by these means would meet the object of the Bill.

The Government have made themselves responsible for this Bill, and yet it is only at this stage that we by chance find out these defects in it. I quite agree that "hinders" is too strong, and I think that those who assist the passing of this Bill will find that they are cutting a rod for their own backs. I take the view that this is a very dangerous Bill, which will be mischievous in Ireland and probably in England. The Attorney General says that intimidation has been defined—so far as I know it has not been defined; and it is used in Statutes exactly because it is impossible to define it. Until this word was introduced the theory of English law was that a criminal offence must be defined with the greatest strictness. The word "intimidation" was expressly selected to cover a mass of matter that could not be defined, and up to this day that word has not been defined. It purports to be defined in the Irish Coercion Act, but that definition is simply an extension of the meaning of the word. I do not think my hon. Friend's position would be any better if he struck out the word "hinder," while so vague a word as "intimidation" is left in. This is a very serious Bill, and yet we have not a single Amendment on the Paper. It creates a new misdemeanour, and apparently the Law Officers of the Crown have not even read or considered the Bill. If the Bill is to be passed this Session, it should be done after careful consideration.

The hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Darling) has pointed out that I backed a Bill in which the term "interfere" was used, but he passed very lightly over these qualifying words, "without lawful excuse," and he will not find the word "intimidate" in that Bill. All the trouble and difficulty that has arisen in connection with the Trades Union Act has arisen in consequence of the vagueness of the term "intimidation." We have had again and again to appeal from learned Recorders and County Court Judges to the Court of Queen's Bench in order to have justice done to the members of trade societies. The right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) suggested that we should take the definition of intimidation as it appears in the Trades Union Act. There is no definition of it in that Act. If the word "intimidate" is to remain in the sub-section, there must be a Definition Clause added to the Bill, giving a clear definition of the meaning of the word, otherwise the Bill will not be acceptable to the great mass of working men in the country. I am anxious for the passing of the Bill, so that the workmen should have that protection to which they are entitled when they give evidence before statutory authorities; but I also wish to prevent the misunderstandings which have occurred through the wide interpretation of the word "intimidation."

This is a serious question, and one which ought not to be lightly disposed of. I would suggest that it should be considered before Report, as we cannot be too careful as to the words used in creating a new offence. We should save the time of the House if the sub-section were omitted for the present, and another brought up on the Report. In the meantime, hon. Members representing the trades unions would have an opportunity of considering the words suggested by the Attorney General. I think the words suggested by the hon. Gentleman are an improvement, but I also think that all parties concerned in the Bill should have an opportunity of considering them.

I hope the Committee will not accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, for we shall probably not have a greater assembly of lawyers present on Report than we have now. We on this side should be most willing to accept the words suggested by the Attorney General. So far from this Bill not having been considered up to the present by the Law Officers of the Crown, the Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke) was Chairman of the Committee to which the Bill was referred, and it was considered in the presence of the hon. and learned Member for Hackney (Sir Charles Russell), and the whole Committee was unanimous in passing the Bill in its present form. We cannot do better than accept the words suggested by the Attorney General, which will be found all that can be desired.

I share the dislike to the use of the word "intimidate," as I believe there is no authoritative definition of it. It was defined in the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act as such intimidation as would justify a Magistrate in binding over the person intimidating to keep the peace. That was repeated in the Conspiracy Act of 1875 as it left this House, but it was struck out in the House of Lords, and the word was left absolutely undefined. The Plymouth case was taken to the Superior Court. The Court held that the facts brought before Mr. Bompas did not constitute a case of intimidation under the Act; but they did not go beyond the bare facts before them, and they refused to define intimidation in the way in which we tried to define it by the Act of last Session. We made an attempt to restore the Act of 1875 to the condition in which it originally left the House of Commons. We tried to get rid of the mischief which the House of Lords had done, but we were beaten by hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I venture to suggest that we should leave out the word "intimidates" in Sub-section (a), and define it by a Definition Clause; and if that is in order, let the Definition Clause extend to intimidation wherever it occurs.

I do not think the hon. Gentleman was quite accurate in saying that we were all unanimous in selecting this word. Some of us, myself amongst the number, preferred the word that appeared in the Bill of the hon. Member for Hackney. Now, I want to point out that the object of this sub-section is to place a person who interferes with witnesses before a Committee of this House in the same position as a person who interferes with witnesses in a Court of Justice. There is no definition of what is a contempt of Court, and yet it is a very wide offence, and it depends upon the discretion and judgment of the Court whether a contempt of Court has been committed by interfering with witnesses. I think the suggestion of my hon. Friend below me (Mr. Robertson) is a very good suggestion—namely, that we should leave out the word "intimidates" and then define the word "intimidate" by the Definition Clause at the end of the Bill. It seems to me that it would work out somewhat in this way: that intimidation should consist of threats of violence, or of injury, or loss of employment or wages.

If my Amendment passes it will be an improvement, to a certain extent at all events, and then some hon. Members and hon. and learned Members might try their hand at defining "intimidation" later on in the Bill.

Would the Government be willing to admit now that a Definition Clause should be put in the Bill?

No.

Then that would leave us pretty much as we were. Though I entirely agree that the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman would make the Bill better than it is, they would not meet the main objection raised on this side of the House—namely, that the word "intimidation" undefined is objectionable. We would gladly accept the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman if they were merely to be a stepping-stone. But we cannot accept them unless it is made quite clear that some definition shall be put in the Bill, and that it shall be considered also before the Bill leaves Committee, and not on the Report stage, which I think would not be satisfactory.

I hope my hon. Friend will press this question to a Division, because it is an exceedingly important one. If this sub-section were passed in the form in which it appears in the Bill, it would lead to a great deal of litigation in the future. Already it has created a great deal of feeling out-of-doors. We do not want this feeling to become intensified, and find ourselves at no distant day involved in a conflict with the authorities arising out of this unfortunate sub-section. I think it is only fair that it should be stated that when the Committee sat upstairs we were placed in a most unfortunate dilemma. The Committee sat only three hours. There were two Bills to consider: one introduced by the hon. Gentleman on the opposite side and one by the hon. and learned Member for Hackney. They were essentially lawyers' Bills, as many of us saw from the first; and it was somewhat difficult for us to quite master the details of either of them. When it was proposed that we should take the two Bills and roll them into one, the matter became still more complicated, and some of the most learned Members of the Committee confessed once or twice during our discussions that they were not quite clear what we were doing. ("Oh, oh!") Well, I remember the question being put by one Member of the Committee:—? "Where are we, Mr. Chairman?" ("Oh!") Yes; that question was put. I remember it perfectly well; and if the hon. Member charges his memory I think he will recollect it. I think, therefore, I am quite consistent in supporting the Motion of my hon. Friend to omit Sub-section (a). I have spoken to friends who are old Trades Union leaders, with quite as much experience as any of us here can claim to possess, and they all agree as to the great danger and difficulty there would be in giving effect to this clause. I respectfully suggest to the Attorney General to carry out the wishes of my hon. Friend, because he is simply voicing the general feeling, so far as I can gather, of Trades Unions out of doors, irrespective of political considerations.

I would suggest to the learned Attorney General, as a solution of the difficulty, to accept the words that have already been mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dumfries Burghs. I should then be prepared to accept Sub-section (a) in that form—

"In order to obstruct the due course of any inquiry, by threats of violence, or of injury, or logs of employment or wages, prevents, or attempts to prevent, any person from appearing or giving evidence on any such inquiry."

The hon. Member for Wansbeck seems to be under a misapprehension. I have not intimated by gesture or otherwise that I would accept no definition of "intimidation." What I said was that I would require to see what the definition was before I would be prepared to support it. It is much more difficult to define it than the hon. Member thinks. The drafting of such a clause requires a great deal of consideration.

I think that remark rather strengthens what I ventured to say some time ago—that this is far too important a matter to legislate upon in a hurry. It is quite obvious that it requires the most careful consideration. I must say that it is rather late in the Session to deal with a matter of such a serious character. I do not blame the Government. But it is quite plain that this is a very ticklish clause, and nothing more should be done with regard to it without full consideration. Therefore, I again repeat the suggestion which I ventured to make to the Attorney General, as the definition of "intimidation" will require consideration, that he should postpone this subsection for the purpose of bringing up well-considered words on Report, so that we might have an opportunity of seeing how the matter stands.

I beg to move, Mr. Courtney, that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. I am at a loss to understand why the Attorney General, after having stated that there is extreme difficulty in defining "intimidation," should persist in retaining sub-section (a) in this Bill. Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman has arrived at that conclusion, I think we should be neglecting the duty which we were sent here to discharge if we did not make every effort in our power to prevent this clause passing in its present obnoxious form.

As I understood the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, it was that, for the present at all events, we should omit Sub-section (a) altogether, and then to consider whether we should put something better instead of it. For my own part, I should be in favour of accepting that suggestion to omit Subsection (a). I would go further, and say, so far as I am concerned, I should not desire to put anything at all in the place of it.

I made the suggestion seriously, and not with the object of throwing ridicule on this Bill. If we-are to go on with this Bill, it is quite plain that these words must be reconsidered. I think, upon the whole, the better course is to report Progress, and let the matter be considered fully. Therefore, having in view that the real object of the Bill may be carried out, I am prepared to support the Motion for reporting Progress.