§ Clause 4 (Intimidation).
§
Amendment again proposed,
At the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided, That no refusal by any person to deal with another in the way of the trade, business, or employment of either; and no declaration of intention not so to deal, and no resort to the practice of what is commonly known as exclusive dealing, shall of itself be deemed to be intimidation."—(Mr. Healy.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he had proposed that Amendment on Friday, and he thought that it was a very reasonable one. He did not see why they should wish to import into the law a principle which had never yet been applied to the law of any country. His object was to provide that no act should be treated as intimidation unless it was of a specific and real character; and he wished to get from the Government a declaration that they did not propose themselves to use the Bill for purposes of intimidation. There were two kinds of intimidation— the intimidation alleged to be struck at by the Bill, and the ordinary intimidation which had so long been practised by the Irish police. The Irish Members desired to induce the Government to insert certain specific words in the Bill, in order to prevent the police from harassing shopkeepers and others in the exercise of their trade and business. The Amendment proposed that if a man in the way of trade, business, or employment refused to deal with another, that such refusal should not be hold to be penal, and that a declaration of the intention of one man not to buy from or 845 sell to another should not be construed to mean "intimidation" under the provisions of the Bill. He proposed the Amendment for the purpose of obtaining from the Government a satisfactory statement as to their intentions. If the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) were in his place, he would have asked him if it was not a fact that a system of "Boycotting" prevailed in India under the protection of the English Government and the English police? If a man connected with a particular caste desired to enter a place of worship belonging to a caste from which he might have been expelled, or to associate with the members of the same caste, the Indian police, so far from protecting him, would aid in "Boycotting" him, and in doing so they would be sustained by the Government of India. In all matters affecting caste one man was prevented from buying from or selling to another, and the "Boycotters" were protected by the Government. It was said that in India there was no Constitutional government. In Ireland Constitutional government did exist; but in Ireland the Government proposed to attack a system which was not only permitted, but actually maintained and protected in India. He wished to know why this disparity should exist in the case of Ireland; why the people there should be placed in a worse position than the Natives of India, with regard to whom the Government were ready to carry out caste prejudices and caste observances? He wished to point out to the Government that it was quite impossible to deal with "Boycotting" tinder this Bill, and, therefore, any attempt they made to do so must be ineffectual. As he understood the matter, the Government proposed to make it penal for a man to refuse to sell goods or trade with another man. That was all very well; but who, as a rule, were the objects of this "Boycotting" system? They were persons who had taken evicted land; and in order to take evicted land—to take a farm from which another person had been unjustly evicted—and to make that farm profitable, they must obtain for them the means of selling as well as the means of buying. It would be of very little use for a land-grabber to say that he should have facilities to buy provisions at a shop, if they did not obtain for him facilities for selling his 846 own stock. Twenty policemen might drive a man's pigs to market, but 200,000 policemen could not make a man buy them when they reached there. He asked, then, how could the Government, by this provision, hope to cope with "Boycotting?" They could secure that the men who were the objects of "Boycotting" should obtain bread, by giving the shopkeeper six months' imprisonment if he refused to sell; but if a man wanted to sell his own stock, or butter, or anything else he possessed, they could not oblige a man to buy from him. That being so, what was the object of this clause? A man could obtain the necessaries of life by placing shopkeepers under a penalty of six months' imprisonment if they refused to supply him; but one of the necessaries of life was selling as well as buying, and how could they obtain for a man a purchaser for his goods if the people declined to buy them? That was the position taken by the Irish Representatives upon this clause, and they held that this provision would simply be used for the purpose of police persecution. It had often been said that the police of Ireland was a purely military organization, and, therefore, they were not so well able to detect crime as the ordinary police. Now, that was only one reason, and a very partial and incomplete reason. The reason why the police were unable to detect crime in Ireland was, that nine-tenths of the population detested the police. They never gave them any help or aid or comfort, because the Constabulary Force of Ireland was a detestable and obnoxious institution in the eyes of the masses of the people. And why? Because the police in Ireland only discharged three functions. If they found a donkey straying on the roadside they took it to the pound; if they saw a man driving a cart to market, they looked to see if he had his name on it, and if he had not, they brought him up and had him fined five shillings and costs; and if they saw a man the worse for liquor, although he might not be molesting anybody, they took him into custody. Those were the three things which the police did, and nothing more. They were very good for oppressing the people of Ireland, but beyond that they were of no use at all. They were occupied from Sunday to Sunday in doing nothing beyond what he had described, and that was the reason why 847 they had not succeeded in obtaining the sympathy of the people, and why they were unable to detect crime. This Act proposed to put an additional weapon in the hands of the police. A man would be able to go into a shop, and say to the shopkeeper, "Have you got any butter?" If the man answered, "No, I have not," the police might be called in, and would say, "You are intimidating this man; and if you don't supply him with what he wants, we will take you before the magistrate, who will give you six months' imprisonment." The proposition of the Government amounted to this—that if a man asked for an article, and the shopkeeper refused to give it to him, by saying "I am out of that article," he was liable to fine and imprisonment. If the Government did not mean that, what did they mean? That was his view of their meaning; and all he asked was that the Government should provide in the Bill some safeguard that the measure would not be used in the manner alleged. There was nothing in the Bill to prevent the most malignant abuse of its provisions; and he contended that it would be malignantly and perversely abused. Could the Government show, by reference to any previous Acts of Parliament, either in this or any other country, that such a provision had ever been enacted? He challenged the Home Secretary, who was so well-known for his historical research, to find, even in Anglo-Saxon times, such a provision enacting that people were not to buy from and sell to whom they liked. What he proposed by the Amendment was that exclusive dealing should not be touched by the Government. Now, the phrase "exclusive dealing" was not a phrase of his own, but it was sanctified by having been made use of last year by the Prime Minister. "Was exclusive dealing the exclusive property of the Irish tenants? The right hon. Gentleman told them then it was frequently used against Railway Companies and Steamboat Companies and others; and the Prime Minister asked the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), if that was what he meant in asking the Government to deal with "Boycotting." Why had the view of the Government changed now? What reason could they allege for the change on their part; and 848 why had not the Prime Minister, who last year made excuses for "Boycotting," explained why he proposed to introduce a provision of this kind now? He hoped the Home Secretary would be able to show the Committee something that ran parallel with the provision they were now enacting in the enactments of other countries. Could he show from the copious sources of his information any reference to any previous Act passed by England, or by any other country under the sun, which proposed to make buying or selling under these conditions a crime? He challenged the Home Secretary to do so; and he said further, that so far as the right hon. Gentleman attempted in Ireland to cope with "Boycotting," his Acts of Parliament and all his efforts would be fruitless. Although they might compel a man, under a threat of imprisonment, to sell to another man, they could not compel a man to buy of him. Therefore, as far as the provision was directed in favour of land-grabbing, the clause would be quite useless. The Prime Minister said that, in the view of the people of Ireland, a sentence of eviction came very near to a sentence of starvation. The Prime Minister had called the Irish Members to task for not employing the phrase "unjust eviction." In the language which the right hon. Gentleman himself employed that qualifying adjective was absent. The words he used himself were "eviction comes near to starvation." A man went in and seized a holding, and made himself a co-partner in the sentence of eviction carried out by the landlord; and could anyone fail to feel that the land-grabber in doing so had committed an immoral act? It might be said he had not done an act which he had not a legal right to do; but there were higher rights than legal rights—there were moral laws—and he (Mr. Healy) contended that it was an unjust act, and an offence against decency, and an offence against the Law of God, that a man should take a farm from which another man had been unjustly evicted, and which practically amounted, in the words of the Prime Minister, to bringing down a sentence of starvation upon the head of some unoffending tenant. The Committee should take into consideration local colour and local prejudice. Why should they propose to legislate in this manner 849 for the Irish people? All the Acts they might pass—if they went on passing them until Doomsday—would not get it out of the minds of the Irish people that, in the words of the Prime Minister, a sentence of eviction was a sentence of starvation; and anybody who lent himself to carrying out a sentence of starvation would commit a heinous and detestable act, and the natural corollary of that act was that he should be punished by every means the people had of punishing him, and the law ought to give him no protection. To quote the words of Shakespere—
The world is not thy friend, nor the world's law;The world affords no law to make thee rich.Then he not poor hut break it.That sentence was used by Lord John Russell in a former debate on Ireland in 1852. The Prime Minister quoted it and reinforced it when he introduced the Land Act in 1870; and the Government, in carrying out a vindictive Statute like this, were simply depriving the Irish people of the only weapon they possessed for their own protection. The law gave these people no protection. Parliament had passed a Land Act which enabled a man to go into Court and get a fair rent fixed; but he might be four years before he had that fair rent fixed, and in the meantime the landlord might come down upon him and evict him for non-payment of a rent which might afterwards be declared to be unjust. Nobody but a malefactor would take an evicted farm; and yet the Government came in and proposed to protect a man whom the common sense and sympathy of the people condemned as an unjust man, actually engaged in stealing things that belonged to his neighbour. And, more than that, the Government constituted themselves his defenders, for the purpose of defeating their own Act of Parliament. They had passed an Act of Parliament to enable a fair rent to be fixed. Owing to the cumbrousness of that Act it could not come into operation immediately; and the result was that evictions took place, and the people appealed to an unwritten law—as if unwritten law had never been heard of except in Ireland— whereupon the Government stepped in and defeated their own Act by enabling the man who had taken the land unjustly to retain it. This Bill would only 850 exasperate the people further, and, in his opinion, it was merely calculated to lead to the commission of crime. It was called a Bill for the Prevention of Crime; he thought it would be more happily described as a Bill for the Promotion of Crime. It would inevitably lead to crime; and he implored the Government to leave to the people, whom the law, unfortunately, did not protect, the only weapon they had in their hands for protecting themselves. If the Government made it a crime to "Boycott" a man, they might rely upon it that the people would resort to other means. ["Order !"] He said it advisedly. If the Government made it illegal for the people to use the only means they had of protecting themselves — if they deprived them of all means of enforcing their own Statutes—they might rely upon it that the people would fall back upon some other means. ["Order!"] The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) cried "Order!" but all the cries of the hon. Member and of the House would not alter human nature. He was speaking not of an Irish tendency simply, but of human nature. The people of Ireland had hitherto had a weapon by which they could protect themselves. That weapon the Government now proposed to take away from them, and they would fall back upon other means, and, to use the phrase of Louis Napoleon, "quitting legality enter on the lines of right." A very important statement from the Catholic Bishops, with a Cardinal Prince at their head, was published yesterday, and those right rev. Prelates, numbering some 30 or 40 ecclesiastics of the highest position and responsibility, declared upon their responsibility—a responsibility, in their minds, as grave and as serious as the responsibility attaching to the Government of the country—that evictions were the root and parent of crime in Ireland. That being so, what did the Government propose to do? They proposed to take away from the people the only means and the only protection the people of Ireland had against land - grabbing. They had been told by The Times, and other newspapers, over and over again, that over-competition for land was the curse of Ireland. The only means they had of checking that system was to organize themselves and prevent men from taking farms from which other 851 men had been improperly evicted. It must be remembered that the people who resorted to these practices had not the same means of making their views felt as the English farmers. He had heard of a case in Scotland where the tenant of a noble Lord who had been paying £4 an acre for the land he held came to the conclusion that he would, in future, only pay £2, and the surrounding farmers agreed to support him. They discussed the question, and came to that decision upon it at their hunts, and at their farmers' ordinaries on the market day in the market town. Nothing of the sort could take place in Ireland. The Irish tenants had not the same means of intercourse. They were unable to communicate with each other. They did not hunt as the English farmers did; they did not meet in the market town and dine together. They were too poor for that. And no institutions of that kind were to be found in Ireland where the members of the farming class could meet together. Now that the Land League was struck down they had no means of protection whatever; and it was against this miserable set of serfs the Government now proposed to legislate and to take away from them the only weapon they could use. When this Bill passed they would be absolutely defenceless. The law would give them no protection whatever. The Act of last year, according to the admission of the Prime Minister, was passed for their protection; but a majority of them would be unable to obtain the benefit of this protection for the next three or four or, perhaps, five years; and while the Government declared that these people wore entitled to protection, and to have a fair rent fixed for them, they were snatching from them every other means of protection they possessed. In legislating for the English trade unions certain kinds of combinations were rendered legal. Why did not the Government allow to the Irish farmers exactly the same right? Why should the Government, by insisting upon the insertion of these harsh and tyrannical clauses in their Bill, ox-asperate every man in Ireland? In his view, they were doing nothing else. He deplored and lamented the position which the tenant farmers would occupy after the passing of this Bill. But it was indelibly implanted in his mind that the 852 more of these Bills they had the more they would be likely to have. That being so, he could see nothing in the future of Ireland, if the Bill was put in force—as he expected it would be—in that spirit of vindictiveness and ferocity which distinguished the Executive of Ireland in the past, but an increase of crime. The Irish Representatives deplored more deeply than anybody else, the great increase of crime which had occurred in Ireland. And why? Because it encouraged the Government, with the approval of the majority of the English people, in insisting upon these stupid laws of coercion. When once they had introduced a Coercion Bill they could never touch bottom. They went on from bad to worse—the way to an unmentionable place being "of easy descent"— and in the end he could see nothing but Martial Law in front of the people of Ireland. Why, he asked, would not the Government take the advice of those who had the situation as seriously at heart as they had themselves—namely, the Irish Bishops and Archbishops? Surely the responsibility of the men who had the care of souls in that country was much greater than that of those who possessed temporal power. The mere offices which these right rev. Prelates held ought, in the eyes of the Government, to attach great weight to their representations. Therefore, he trusted that the Home Secretary would accede to this very reasonable proviso, and give the Committee some assurance that this clause dealing with intimidation would not be used in the manner the Irish Members apprehended.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI should like to remind the hon. Member of the statement which he made last week. He said then that the Government ought to be content with the progress they were making with the Bill, seeing that they had passed the first four clauses of the Bill. But that statement was not technically true, and I am afraid it is not going to be substantially true, if we are to go on discussing this clause in the manner the hon. Member is discussing it. The hon. Member has made a speech which is a very able defence of the system of "Boycotting;" but we have discussed the system of "Boycotting" at great length already, and the Committee have made up their 853 minds to suppress "Boycotting." What might have been considered by the indulgence of the House a tolerably fair speech upon the whole clause is not so upon the Amendment. There have not been two minutes out of the half-hour's speech of the hon. Member devoted to the bearing of the Amendment. Now, I do not think that is a fair way of dealing with the question or with the Committee. The question of "Boycotting" is, no doubt, a very important question, and the hon. Member has pronounced for the third or fourth time a panegyric upon "Boycotting." The Government do not agree with him, nor do the House. The Government have made up their minds, and they are not likely to change it. They will do all in their power and everything they consider necessary to put down "Boycotting." The hon. Member has referred to the opinion of the Irish Catholic Bishops, and the document which they have put forth. I have read that document; but I see in it no justification or praise of "Boycotting," as pronounced by the hon. Member. The hon. Member says that the police of Ireland harass the people. There are other persons who harass the people of Ireland as well as the police— namely, those who shoot them in the legs and fire bullets into their dwellings. Therefore, I cannot accept the views of the hon. Member as to the manner in which we should proceed. The hon. Member's ingenuity is inexhaustible. He recommends us to introduce the system of caste into Ireland, and to protect it by the police as in India. I do not think that argument is likely to aid the hon. Member very materially. He says this clause will not put down "Boycotting." Well, if it will not put down "Boycotting," why is the hon. Member so anxious and so afraid of it? If that is his view of it, let the clause go, and let us get on with some other part of the Bill; but if he is opposing the clause because it will put down "Boycotting," then I am afraid we must take the sense of the Committee as between the views of the Government and the views of the hon. Member. The Amendment is still open to all the objections that were stated on Friday by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. Then my hon. Friend said that this is confessedly a difficult and complicated subject, and we must endeavour to express ourselves 854 as clearly as we can upon it, and put into the clause nothing that would be superfluous, because that which is superfluous is naturally dangerous, and confuses those who have to administer the law. We have said, over and over again, that exclusive dealing is not what we wish to cope with, and we have agreed to put in the words "in order to." We say that when these things are done in a manner intended to put a person in bodily fear, or in any fear of losing his business, or of being injured in it, it is an offence. That is our intention in this clause, and it is a perfectly fair question to raise. Either the Amendment of the hon. Member means that, or it means something different. If it means that, there is no occasion to put the Amendment into the Bill, because it is there now. If it means more than that, we do not mean more than that, and, therefore, we cannot accept the Amendment. That is the position of the Government with regard to the Amendment, and on these grounds we cannot accept it.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary was a Liberal statesman and also a member of the Bar, and he was astonished that a right hon. and learned Gentleman occupying those positions should have expressed the views the right hon. and learned Gentleman had just expressed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he objected to have superfluities put into an Act of Parliament. It was the first time he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) ever heard of a member of the Bar being opposed to superfluities in an Act of Parliament. But still worse was the position of the right hon. and learned Gentleman as a Liberal statesman. What was the object of the clause? The object of the clause was to take away from certain portions of Her Majesty's subjects the liberty they had enjoyed up to the present moment. It might be a good or a bad liberty, but it was a liberty they had enjoyed up to the present moment. His hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) proposed an Amendment for the purpose of safeguarding as much as possible the liberty the clause proposed to leave to the Irish people; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as a Liberal statesman, objected to words the object of which was to protect a portion of the liberty of the subject. 855 That was an utterly inconsistent and intolerable position for a Liberal statesman to take up. The right hon. and learned Gentleman endeavoured to put the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) on the horns of a dilemma, and, interpreting the clause his own way, ho said the hon. Member wished to defeat the object of it. Now, the objection of the hon. and learned Attorney General to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) was that the Amendment attributed an intention to the clause which the clause had not; and if the clause had not the intention of interfering with exclusive dealing which was not for the purpose of intimidation and coercion, why not put in words to say that it had not that meaning? Why not give the Irish people such protection for their liberties as the Amendment of his hon. Friend would give them? Let the right hon. and learned Gentleman take the Amendment of his hon. Friend. Let him point out that the Amendment in any way defeated the intention and purpose of the clause. If it did not, then let him put it in the Bill. A superfluity in the defence of the liberties of the people was a superfluity that was good, and ought to be welcome to any Liberal statesman brought up under Constitutional principles. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) did not mean at all to enter into the argument which had been raised by his hon. Friend as to the general principle of "Boycotting." He said that that had nothing to do with the Amendment. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Hear, hear!] The right hon. and learned Gentleman applauded that observation. Then, if the Amendment had nothing to do with "Boycotting," why object to put it in the clause, the purpose of the clause being to put down "Boycotting?" He invited an answer to that question. The clause was for the purpose of putting down "Boycotting." This Amendment was not for the purpose of interfering with that object. Then why not accept it, seeing that it would afford protection to a portion of the liberty of the subject, which was proposed to be taken away by the Bill?
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, that, leaving entirely out of consideration the question whether "Boycotting" was an immoral practice or not, or whether it was desirable to put it down, he thought it was 856 highly necessary that the clause should be safeguarded as much as possible, or otherwise great injustice might be done. His chief objection to the Bill was that it would create injustice and inconvenience to persons who might be perfectly innocent, while, at the same time, it would not affect those with whom it proposed to deal. He would give a case to illustrate what he meant. Suppose a shopkeeper in a country town was in the habit of giving credit. Suppose he were applied to by a farmer who had had a large amount of goods already, and the shopkeeper said—"I will supply you if you pay me ready money, but I do not intend to give you the credit I have been in the habit of doing heretofore." If the farmer were malicious, and possessed, as he probably might, the ear of the local magistrate and the police, he would say at once—"If you do not give me credit I will go to the police and tell them that you are trying to intimidate me by doing something which is injurious to my interests, and I will have you put into prison for six months." What guarantee would that shopkeeper have that he would not be sent to prison for six months, simply because, with no intention of intimidating a buyer, he wanted to protect himself against giving credit for an amount that would never be paid? A state of circumstances might arise in which direct injustice might be done to an individual by the provisions of this particular clause, and he thought the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was calculated to secure more or less of safety to the person against whom the charge of intimidation was made. The shopkeeper, if he knew what he had done was perfectly legal and legitimate, of course would not be in fear of punishment. The whole evil would be guarded against, and it could not be stated that in such a case as this any actual intimidation could be intended. In the absence of an Amendment of this kind, unless very substantial evidence could be brought forward, the magistrate who adjudicated upon the case would have power to decide simply upon an assumption in his own mind, without reference to any specific evidence as to the facts of the case. He trusted that the Government would not further object to the Amendment, and if they did, he hoped 857 his hon. Friend would divide the Committee.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that it seemed to him that the present Amendment was merely a generalization of one put on the Paper on Friday by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). The object of this Amendment was to generalize instead of particularize the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). He would ask the Home Secretary whether he would accept the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell); not, perhaps, its precise words, but its principle, because the Attorney General might be able to bring up better words? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would do that, he thought the Irish Representatives would have no objection to accept it, instead of the Amendment moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). He asked the Home Secretary to be good enough to inform the Committee whether the Government would consent to take that course; because it seemed to him that the matter was not one of very paramount importance, and it would greatly tend to make the Bill proceed smoothly, which was an object they all desired.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he could not support the Amendment on account of the words contained in it referring to the practice "of what was commonly known as exclusive dealing." These words appeared to him to be very objectionable. He rose, however, to put a question to the Home Secretary in regard to the Amendment in connection with the 4th clause. Would the 4th clause in any way affect the working of the Trades Union Acts of 1871 and 1876?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had already answered that question in the negative two or three times. It was intended to insert an Amendment at the end of the Bill to save the Act of 1875, but that was a totally different thing from introducing these matters into the clause. If they introduced limitations of this kind it would lead to all sorts of misapprehension. The Government were perfectly aware that this clause and other clauses of the Bill dealt with very difficult matters, and they had it under consideration to give 858 the Resident Magistrate legal assistance. They had it in their mind to give him the assistance of a lawyer. He could not state definitely the precise form in which that could be done; but their desire was that the Resident Magistrates, in the administration of the law, should have legal assistance. All the Government had to do on this and other clauses was to make the statement of their intentions as clear as possible, and it was desirable not to complicate the matter by introducing unnecessary provisions. To give any sort of approbation to exclusive dealing in the clause would be very mischievous indeed; and for that reason the Government could not accept the Amendment, which was in the same position as another Amendment still on the Paper, and which was, on the face of it, suggested, in the interests of the "no rent" agitation. He trusted that the discussion would now close, and that the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) would allow a decision to be taken upon his Amendment.
§ SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNsaid, he wished to put a question to the Home Secretary, because upon the answer he received to it his vote upon the Amendment would depend. He was informed by a gentleman who had recently come into an estate in Yorkshire, that the feeling in that part of the country against Irishmen was very strong indeed, and it was stated that a number of farmers there had combined to agree that under no circumstances whatever would they employ Irish labourers. He wished to know if that sort of action would be regarded as "Boycotting" under this Bill?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he could not understand what the action of the farmers in Yorkshire could have to do with this Bill at all. What might be done in the West Riding could have no bearing upon the operation of the Act in Ireland.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORwished to ask the Law Officers of the Government what the clause really meant?
THE CHAIRMANI must remind the hon. Member that the question is not the adoption of the clause, but the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy).
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he had not quite accurately expressed what he intended to say. He thought the hon. 859 Baronet who had just spoken (Sir David Wedderburn) had put the matter in a nutshell. This clause took away all right of combination in Ireland, while combination was safeguarded in every shape and form for every class of Englishmen. The hon. Baronet had mentioned the case of the Yorkshire farmers and the Irish labourers; but hon. Members would not be ignorant that in every class of life in this country, owing to the hostility maintained towards Irishmen, the same sort of prejudice was employed for the purpose of interfering with the calling, business, and livelihood of Irishmen. [Mr. JOHN BRIGHT: No, no!] The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said "No, no!" Was the right hon. Gentleman acquainted with the affairs of every Irishman in this country? Was he acquainted with the details of the business of the Irish people in this country? He would tell the right hon. Gentleman that, much as the right hon. Gentleman did know, there were some things which were not fully brought to his knowledge; and he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would reiterate the fact that, owing to the prevalent opinion against Irishmen in this country, Irishmen were interfered with even in the means of earning their bread in England by Englishmen. Consequently, this kind of combination was allowed in England, and the public opinion of the country sanctioned it; whereas the Government proposed to take it away from Irishmen in Ireland who were endeavouring to protect their lives, their property, and their homes. The Amendment had no connection with "Boycotting," and he would advise his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) to omit from it the words which applied to exclusive dealing. He did not think that they ought even indirectly to justify exclusive dealing by Act of Parliament; but the first words of the Amendment of his hon. Friend simply asked that the magistrates, in interpreting the clause, should not interpret it so widely as to interfere with all right of combination among the Irish tenants. He did not see why the Government should object to a proposal of that kind. It did not interfere with their clause; but it might interfere with the power of the landlords to pursue a course of relentless persecution against the tenant.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that, in using the words "exclusive dealing," he had humbly copied the phraseology of the Prime Minister. He did not claim any copyright in the phrase; but it belonged entirely to the Prime Minister. No one could take it from the right hon. Gentleman, and the phrase must have the sanction and approval of the Prime Minister, because he had invented it himself. He (Mr. Healy) had simply desired to recommend the Amendment to the Treasury Bench by employing a phrase which had been coined by their Head and Chief. He had noticed the vigour with which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) shook his head a moment ago. Had the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster never heard of the famous catchword, "No Irish need apply?" It was a phrase which he (Mr. Healy) had heard in one or two places he had visited, and especially in Liverpool, Manchester, and some of the Northern towns, and he believed that it was frequently put in force. Ho did not complain of men who enforced their natural prejudices in a heated time; but he was only calling attention to the existence in England of a practice analogous to the one which they desired to carry out in Ireland. The Home Secretary objected that he (Mr. Healy) had gone into the question of "Boycotting" once more. The observation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have been legitimate, if, in the course of the four days' discussion, they had ever succeeded in extracting one word from him to assure them that the clause would not be used in the way they apprehended it would be. But not one word had fallen from the Government in reply to the attacks and charges of the Irish Representatives; and on the fourth day he was to be complained of, according to the Home Secretary, because he felt it his duty to return to the charge. The Government flattered themselves that they would not hear any more of this matter. He (Mr. Healy) believed they were likely to hear a great deal more of it. He charged the Government of Ireland with maintaining the "Boycotting" system themselves in some of the counties, and with having used their police to "Boycott" one class of the people in the interests of religious fanaticism. The 861 Home Secretary said he (Mr. Healy) desired to introduce the caste system of India into Ireland. Now, he would not stoop even to deny that allegation; but he really thought that when a Gentleman of the high character and ability of the right hon. and learned Gentleman made a reckless charge of that kind, he ought to ascertain what foundation there was for it.
§ MR. BIGGARwished to ask the Home Secretary one question. He understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that he intended, at the end of the Bill, to introduce a clause to provide that the Acts of 1871 and 1875, with regard to the practice of combination, should be read as part of the present Bill. He asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it would not be well to state specifically the general purpose of his Amendment— whether it would allow the Irish farmers to combine in certain matters for which combination was legal in England? Of course, it could not be expected that the farmers and labourers in Ireland would be permitted to combine for illegal purposes; but would the right hon. and learned Gentleman sanction their combination for objects which were in themselves perfectly legal?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, there were various objects in regard to which combination was not forbidden by the Bill; but if the act done was done in order to put another man in fear, then under this Bill it would not be allowed.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: —Ayes 34; Noes 258: Majority 224.—(Div. List, No. 126.)
§
The next Amendment on the Paper was the following, which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon):—In page 3, line 29, after"living,"insert—
Provided always, That nothing in this Clause shall he taken to apply to—
THE CHAIRMANThis Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), is obviously intended as a joke upon the Committee, and cannot be seriously proposed. It would be impossible for me to put such an Amendment from the Chair.
§ MR. DILLONwished to say a word on the point of Order. The Amendment was not in the least degree intended as a joke, but had been placed on the Paper with the object of having the question seriously discussed by the Committee. He had not understood the Chairman to rule that it was out of Order.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he had understood the Chairman to rule that it was out of Order, because he regarded is as a joke; but the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) asserted that he did not intend it to be a joke.
THE CHAIRMANThen if the hon. Member did not intend it as a joke, it is trifling with the Committee, and it is out of Order.
§ MR. HEALY,in proposing, in page 3, line 29, after "living," to insert—
Provided, That nothing heroin contained shall be deemed to oblige any person to do any act which such person has a legal right to abstain from doing, or to abstain from doing any act which such person has a legal right to do,said, the Government had declared, a few minutes ago, that they would object to any Amendment which interfered with the intention of the clause. They had also expressed their opinion that the word "intimidation" was made so clear, and so fully conveyed the meaning of the Government, that no stipendiary magistrate in Ireland would have any difficulty in construing it. His (Mr. Healy's) contention was that the clause did nothing of the kind; and he therefore proposed this proviso in order to enable a person to do any act he had a legal right to do, and to abstain from doing any act which he had a legal right to abstain from doing. 863 Her Majesty's Government could not say that this Amendment would import into the clause any novel or new doctrine. It did nothing of the sort; it simply recited a dry matter of fact for the purpose of laying down distinctly that a man was not to be the victim of a vindictive or malicious act on the part of the police. He might remind the Government that, notwithstanding their declaration, they had not accepted a single Amendment from an Irish Member except upon a mere point of detail. It was true that they had accepted a few Amendments, but they had generally come from the Front Opposition Bench; and, so far as he knew, the only Amendment they had accepted from an Irish Member was the insertion of the words "in order to," proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). No other Amendment proposed by an Irish Member had been adopted by the Government; and the arguments addressed from those Benches to the Government had been completely thrown away. The majority of hon. Members sitting behind the Government had remained altogether silent, probably on the reasonable ground that they thought the Government knew their own minds, and they were content to give the Government the full and complete powers they asked for. But, on the other hand, he thought the Government should recognize, in some way, the feelings of the Irish Representatives on that side of the House; and it was to be regretted that, as a matter of fact, the Irish Members had not succeeded in getting one word inserted into the clause. Not a single proposition would the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary accept from them, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman might go away from the House and boast that he had succeeded in sitting there a monument of Parliamentary stolidity, as far as his action in regard to the Bill was concerned. But he would point out to the Government that that was not the spirit in which Her Majesty's Ministers ought to deal with the Irish Members, nor was it the manner in which the Irish Members had been dealt with on previous occasions. He had no desire to draw a parallel between the Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster); but, as a matter of fact, when the Coer- 864 cion Bill of last year was introduced, the Irish Members did obtain some concessions from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster)—notably in regard to the treatment of prisoners. But this year, in dealing with the Home Secretary, they had not got a single syllable, and not even a word, put into the clause. The right hon. and learned Gentleman allowed himself to be guided solely by the views of the Opposition. He had no wish to disparage the arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but the Irish Members were certainly unconvinced by them, although, undoubtedly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman could go away from that House and boast to his Colleagues in the Cabinet, or to anybody else, that he had passed this most obnoxious Bill without making a single concession upon it.
§
Amendment proposed,
To add at the end of the Clause the words "Provided, That nothing herein contained shall ho deemed to oblige any person to do any act which such person has a legal right to abstain from doing, or to abstain from doing any act which such person has a legal, right to do."— (Mr. Healy.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of answering the personal attack which the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had made upon him. He did not think the abuse of the hon. Member would make the House think any better of the hon. Member or any worse of himself, nor would it in any way affect the progress of the Bill. But he demurred to the statements of fact which had been made by the hon. Member. The hon. Member said that the Government had accepted no Amendments submitted by the Irish Members, but that they had been guided entirely by the views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). Now, first of all, the Government had been guided by their own views as expressed in the Bill. The words of the clause were not the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). They simply expressed the result of the careful and deliberate determination of Her Majesty's 865 Government. They had not, however, been obstinate about the clause. There had been two Amendments already inserted into the clause, neither of which had been introduced at the suggestion of any of his right hon. Friends who sat with him on the Treasury Bench. The first Amendment was introduced at the suggestion of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and so far the hon. Member was correct in the statement he had made; but the second Amendment, and the most material Amendment, with the object of making the clause more clear, was accepted from the hon. Member who sat behind him, the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Cohen). Those were the facts of the case, and they were not consistent with the statement the hon. Gentleman had just made. He did not think that either of these alterations had met with the strong approval of hon. Members opposite, so that there was an additional inaccuracy in the statement of the hon. Member. He (Sir William Harcourt) would now deal with the Amendment itself. It was an Amendment by way of Proviso to repeal the clause, and the hon. Member could hardly suppose that the Government would be prepared to accept such an Amendment. The Amendment said—
Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be deemed to oblige any person to do any act which such person has a legal right to abstain from doing, or to abstain from doing any act which such person has a legal right to do.Now, the whole object of the clause was to make it an offence for a man to do that which, before the passing of the clause, he had a legal right to do, if he did it with the intention stated in the clause, of ruining another man. He could scarcely see the use of treating as a serious proposition an Amendment in the shape of a Proviso which would have the effect of repealing all they had hitherto done in reference to the clause.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the Government had repeatedly stated that their object regarding this clause was to put down "Boycotting," and that that was their object in inserting the clause in the Bill. Now, Irish Members had pointed out from time to time that, in addition to giving powers to put down "Boycotting," the clause would give the Resident Magistrates in Ireland the power 866 of putting down combination, which, under similar circumstances, legally existed in England. They had called the attention of the Government to the necessity of introducing such limitations or Provisoes in this clause as would deprive the Resident Magistrates of that power, giving them, at the same time, power to put down "Boycotting." He could not think the course which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had followed in this matter was a fair one towards Irish Members. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had taken advantage of the prejudice which existed against "Boycotting" to endeavour to obtain a clause which would leave it in the power of the Executive Government—even in the power of those who were distrusted in Ireland, the stipendiary magistrates, over whom, according to law, the Executive Government had no control with regard to the administration of the law—to put down any kind of combination in Ireland, and to control the actions, words, and thoughts of the people in the most unheard of way. Now, during the four days on which this clause had been under discussion, the Government had had placed before them the wishes of the Irish Members, that some definition or limitation should be introduced into the clause in order to carry out what both Parties said was their object—namely, the maintenance of the right of combination, and to secure that this should not be left to the discretion of any magistrate. The right of workmen to combine to leave their employers for the purpose of carrying out any lawful object, and the right of farmers to combine for the purpose of obtaining a reduction of their rents—these were two objects which Irish Members could not give up, and upon them they must endeavour to turn the minds of the Government if possible. At present those rights were not left under this clause of the Bill, inasmuch as they could be taken away by the action of any stipendiary magistrate. For his own part, he was not disposed to allow the Government to walk off under cover of the prejudice created against "Boycotting," and obtain the passage of the clause, which practically abolished the right of combination.
§ MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, that there was clearly a difficulty with re- 867 gard to the wording of the clause, when taken in connection with the statement of the Home Secretary. The words were capable of being made much more extensive than the Legislature intended. He need not point out to the Committee that it was necessary, in framing an Act of Parliament, to be perfectly clear with regard to the language employed. These words, understood with reference to the context of the debate, might have a very different meaning applied to them in other circumstances. In criminal legislation the utmost care must be taken not to use words capable of any interpretation beyond the meaning strictly intended.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREwished to ask the Home Secretary a question which he had put to him previously, and which an hon. Member had also asked in the course of this discussion. Did the Bill deprive Irish labourers of the right of giving up employment, and did it deprive the tenants of the right to refuse to pay rent? Again, did the fact of the tenant refusing to pay his rent bring him under the provisions of the Bill? The Home Secretary said he would put in words taken from the Act of 1875 to meet this case, or, at any rate, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would do so. If the right hon. Gentleman intended to insert words of this sort, he thought the progress of the Bill would be facilitated if he would be good enough to say whether those words covered the cases he (Mr. Labouchere) had just referred to. Would the right hon. Gentleman say that after the words wore inserted in the Bill a labourer might claim the right to leave his employment if he liked, and a farmer refuse to pay his rent without becoming liable under the Act?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, as he desired to make this clause as clear as possible, he replied once more, that a man leaving his employment, as he was perfectly free to do now, would also be free to do so under this Bill. A man not able to pay his rent was subject to civil action for breach of contract; but if a man refused to pay, or did any other act with an intent forbidden in the Bill, then he would have committed an offence under the Bill. Fears had been expressed that in some way or other the principles guaranteed under the Act of 1875 would be inter- 868 fered with; but he had said, over and over again, that except in cases of the kind just referred to, the Act of 1875 would apply as before—that was to say, Her Majesty's Government proposed that it should not be interfered with by the present Bill. He had heard also expressions of doubt and apprehension lest the Bill should interfere with the legitimate political association of Irishmen for lawful purposes. Well, that was not the intention of the Bill, and Her Majesty's Government would be perfectly ready to declare also in a Saving Clause that it was not so intended, or to have that effect; and it would be believed by every man who was a lawyer, and by every man of common sense, he might add, that this was not the intention of the Bill. If it were necessary to declare that these associations for legitimate political purposes were not intended to be interfered with, he should have no objection to declare it; but ho should not care to introduce any limitation of that kind into this clause, because any such limitation introduced might become a cause of great confusion and difficulty. He trusted hon. Members would accept the statement he had made in reply to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell).
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had answered the question of the hon. Member for Northampton, but in a very unsatisfactory way. He was sorry to see that he had practically answered that question in a way which showed that this Act was intended to prevent the combinations suggested by the hon. Member for Northampton. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that a tenant farmer could refuse to pay his rent, or a labourer might leave his employment, provided they did not do so with the forbidden intent in this Bill. Well, then, what was the forbidden intent in the Bill? It was that a person was to be charged with intending to put some other person in fear of injury, or loss to himself or his property, or means of living; but he would like to know how any labourer could leave his employment, either alone or in combination with others, or how any farmer could refuse to pay anything but a fair rent, either alone or in combination, except by put- 869 ting his landlord in fear of loss to his property? If a landlord were told that he would not get his rent, it followed that he must be placed in fear of loss to his property; if a farmer was told by his workmen that they were about to leave him—perhaps at a critical time when he wanted their services—it would necessarily follow that the employer was placed in fear of injury to his business or property. In fact, every action of workmen in England in the case of strikes placed employers in fear of injury to their property and means of living; and, therefore, when any combination or strike was undertaken by bodies of men belonging to particular classes, it must be with fear that loss to property would result from the action of such combination. As a matter of fact, that was the only way, practically speaking, in which the workmen could enforce the strike. If an employer remained in precisely the same position after a strike, and found there would be no loss to his business or property, he would disregard the strike, and the workmen would not be able to hope that the result of the strike would be to obtain the increase of wages or whatever other object they might have struck for. So it was with regard to Ireland, and now the Home Secretary had admitted that what the Bill proposed to do was to take away from Irish workmen this very important right—a right which existed in England—and to allow the stipendiary magistrates to say that that which was perfectly lawful for English workmen might be intimidation for Irish workmen to do. He thought they had now a better understanding of the position, and were able to get a better view of the prospect of ameliorating the condition of the Irish people.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was afraid he could do no more than repeat what his right hon. and learned Friend had stated. As he understood, the hon. Member for the City of Cork desired that the labourer or workman who, for the purpose of obtaining an advance of wages, said to his employer that he wished to leave his service, should not come within this section. His right hon. and learned Friend had said, over and over again, that this would not be an offence within the clause, for the reason that before you could create an offence within this clause, 870 the act must be done in order to effect a wrong. The workmen, in the case put by the hon. Member, proposed to leave the service of his employer not for the purpose of intimidating him, but to benefit himself, and that was not an offence contemplated by the Bill. With respect to the combination which the hon. Member suggested would become illegal under this Act, his right hon. and learned Friend had stated that he would strictly declare in the Bill that the protection created by the Act of 1875 should be preserved. His right hon. and learned Friend in this respect was willing to meet the views of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. What the Act of 1875 did was to declare that nothing in relation to the action between employers and employed should be an offence, in consequence of the mere act of combination; and the distinction between legal and illegal combinations, drawn in the Act of 1875, would be preserved, and with it the right of persons, individually or in combination, to strike or leave employment for the purpose of obtaining better wages, or otherwise benefiting themselves.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he must confess he was unable to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman. He was afraid that what he was doing, although very clever in itself, was really hair-splitting. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had drawn a distinction between the intent to strike in the one case, and the intent to strike in the other, and that distinction he (Mr. Parnell) was unable to see. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that where the labourer, either alone or in combination, struck to obtain better wages for himself, it was not an illegal thing, because he struck to obtain an advantage for himself; it was only when he struck to effect a wrong that the action amounted to intimidation. He repeated that he was unable to see how the distinction between the results was to be preserved. When workmen struck with the intention of obtaining an advantage to themselves, such as the increase in the rate of wages or otherwise, how was this proposal to be effected? It was, in effect, by putting a wrong upon the employer, because such a strike would not be entered into at all were it not for the purpose of bringing pressure to bear upon an em- 871 ployer to show him that injury would result to him by his labourers leaving him if he did not give in to their fair and legitimate demands. What earthly effect could a strike of labourers have if an employer could turn round, without any loss to himself whatever, with equal advantage to himself, perhaps with greater advantage to himself, and obtain another set of workmen as cheaply as those who left his service? Under such circumstances, a strike would never be entered into at all, because it could never be effectual. Therefore, he submitted that the distinction of the hon. and learned Gentleman, as between the labourer obtaining an advantage for himself and effecting a wrong against his employer, had no existence. These were two separate and distinct actions which must go side by side, otherwise the strike could never have a successful issue. The words of this Bill absolutely precluded any strike of workmen from taking place which would inflict the slightest injury upon employers. Not only according to the wording of the clause, but according to the explanation put upon it by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, the magistrates, in deciding whether a strike would inflict injury on employers, must necessarily consider whether injury had been inflicted; and if they found that it had been, or that it was likely that it would result, then clearly the magistrates would feel themselves justified, according to the interpretation given by the Attorney General for England, in finding the men guilty of intimidation, and sentencing them to gaol for six months.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, ho had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork with considerable attention, and he was compelled to ask himself by what hallucination the hon. Member had imported into the discussion on this clause such a mass of what appeared to be arbitrary and visionary interpretation? The proposition of the hon. Member was that he wished to take care that the Government should not, under the pretext of putting down "Boycotting," also put down that species of combination which workmen were permitted to use in England. Now, those combinations which workmen were permitted to use in England were usually directed to some object of benefit to 872 themselves; but the combination of labourers in Ireland was generally attended with the opposite result— namely, of injury to the persons who used them. It was, in fact, a complete inversion of the strike as understood in England. It resulted, it was true, in loss to the employers; but it resulted also in loss to the labourers. In the case mentioned by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, the labourers did not strike for the purpose of obtaining an increase of their wages, and probably no inducement which the landlord might offer would be likely to satisfy them. The strike in this case was done for a purpose extraneous to that of obtaining a benefit such as had been described. He was surprised that the hon. Member for the City of Cork, who, it seemed to him, usually kept as close to his point in arguing upon the interpretation of other parts of the Bill as any Member of that House, legal or non-legal, should be arguing on that occasion that the insertion of the words adopted to meet the views of hon. Members on a former night would have no effect on the clause. The hon. Member said that the magistrate would look simply to the effect upon the employer, and not to the intent with which the act was done. But it was precisely because the words of the clause appeared to be colourably open to that interpretation that his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department proposed to bring in the words "in order to." It was true that the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) proposed to substitute for those words, at one time, "with intent to do;" but the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. A. Cohen) declared that he had carefully compared the two phrases together, and that the words "in order to" constituted a more effective and stronger phrase—that this phrase meant something, and that it meant that the effect on the employer was not to be a test of the character of the act done, but that the intent must be looked back to; and if the act was done for the purpose of injuring the employer it would be intimidation, whereas, if it were done for the benefit of the workmen, then, as in England, it could not be intimidation, and could not be an offence under the law. With great respect for the hon. Member for the City of Cork, he was bound to say that his 873 argument appeared to him to be an argument directly in the face of the wording of the clause. The hon. Member asserted that nothing but the effect on the employer was to be looked to; but it must be remembered that the Committee had unanimously—with the exception of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), who had made a reservation—introduced into the clause words for the very purpose of preventing that evil. If the hon. Member were still able to say that the words of the clause were directed simply to the effect upon the employer, and that that was the only criterion to determine the character of an act of intimidation, no doubt that would constitute a strong criticism. But that was not the effect of the clause now, because words were introduced to carry back the Judge to the examination of the purpose and intent. He appealed to the hon. Member to take this view of the case, although he could not hope to produce an effect upon his mind if he still declined to accept the declarations of his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the hon. and learned Attorney General.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had given a fairer definition and a much fairer interpretation of the effect of the clause than the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Henry James). The right hon. Gentleman had explained that where labourers were withdrawn from their employment, not for the purpose of gaining a benefit for themselves, but for the purpose of punishing the landlord as regarded his conduct towards his tenants —that this would be held to be intimidation. He (Mr. Parnell) would be perfectly satisfied with that definition if it were added to the clause, and if it were not left to be constructed out of the clause by the stipendiary magistrates. He did not see any difficulty in accepting that position—namely, that persons should be at liberty in Ireland to take combined action for their own benefit; but not for the purpose of punishing their employers or their landlords in order to obtain benefits for some other people. He believed he had stated, however roughly, the idea of the Prime Minister with regard to intimidation. For instance, he understood the right 874 hon. Gentleman to say that if a landlord had labourers in his employment, and these labourers were withdrawn from his employment in order to compel him to give a reduction of rent to his tenants, that that would be intimidation; but that it would not be intimidation if these labourers were withdrawn from their employment in order to obtain an increase of wages for themselves. Now, he thought that if they could get that put into the Bill, and also extended to breach of contract, which was also not a criminal offence in England, it would be fair enough—that was to say, that persons might take action of this kind for their own benefit, and not for any ulterior or other object outside it. It was not for him to suggest how these things should be done. The Government had a great deal of legal skill at their command, and he thought it would be fair for the Prime Minister, after the statement he had made, to consider in what way the view he had expressed could be carried out, which seemed to give to the Irish tenants and labourers the same right of legal and harmless combination which existed in England.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he would not suppose that the Committee required to be told that the hon. Member for the City of Cork was a man of ingenuity and resource. The Prime Minister had just made a short speech, pointing out his view with regard to the clause before the Committee, and the hon. Member for the City of Cork suggested that the Prime Minister had in that speech made some concession. He ventured to say that the Prime Minister had done nothing of the kind. What was the statement put into plain English? The hon. Member for the City of Cork had endeavoured to discuss this question as if there were an analogy between the case of strikes in England, and that of the withdrawal of labourers from employment in Ireland. But he maintained that no such analogy existed. If workmen in England struck, it was avowedly in order to obtain an increase of wages or an improvement of their condition. But what was the condition of the Irish labourers? When undoubtedly they were coerced, as they had been during the last 12 months, they had withdrawn in some cases from their employment most unwillingly; they had withdrawn not only to the detriment of their employers, but in 875 many cases to their own absolute ruin. Everyone knew that there was not a single case in Ireland of labourers having withdrawn for their own benefit; they had withdrawn because they were compelled and forced to do so for the benefit of others. It was a fact which could not be gainsaid that these labourers who had withdrawn had not done so with the object of getting more lucrative employment; on the contrary, they had been maintained by the Land League at the same wages, or at similar wages, or else they had been allowed to go into the workhouse and starve. It was now adroitly suggested by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, himself a master of adroitness—if he might be allowed to say so—that it would be satisfactory to put into this Bill a statement that labourers should be allowed to withdraw from their employment for the purpose of raising their wages. Now, anyone acquainted with the question knew that every labourer would avow that he had withdrawn from his employment for the purpose of obtaining an increase of wages, under the circumstances described. That would be the allegation in every case, and therefore he said that if the suggestion of the hon. Member for the City of Cork were adopted, that moment an opportunity would be afforded of evading the clause. Let hon. Members ask themselves this question. Did they think that the hon. Member for the City of Cork was seriously anxious by his suggestion to have the clause made efficient for putting down "Boycotting?" Would the hon. Member himself assent to that proposition? The hon. Member said "Yes," and he (Mr. Gibson) never liked to dissent from an opinion which an hon. Member of that House expressed with regard to his own action; but he must confess that he should feel a considerable desire, at all events, to apply all his powers of criticism to a clause constructed by the hon. Member for the City of Cork for the purpose of putting down "Boycotting." He was much disposed to think that the clause in its present form—for he assumed they had heard the last word with regard to it—would do a great deal of good to the labourers in Ireland. One of the great difficulties those unfortunate people had to contend with was that they had no excuse for not obeying the behests of those who told them to leave their employment; but 876 under this clause they would now have some opportunity of reconsidering their position and trying to obey the law. The clause had been under discussion for several days; and he must say, with regard to the present Amendment, that it had been, in his opinion, sufficiently considered. There was one observation which fell from the hon. Member in relation to the Irish vote. The subject was alluded to several times; but he desired to point out that there was a vast section of popular opinion in Ireland, not confined to any particular class, that desired to be freed from the terrorism of "Boycotting." He repudiated the suggestion that Irish opinion was in its favour; and he desired, in supporting that statement, to draw the attention of the Committee to this fact—namely, that in no division which had taken place upon the Amendments put forward with the intention of riddling this clause had more than one-third of the whole body of Irish Members gone in the Lobby to support them.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that the distinction to be drawn in the case of Irish labourers was this. When labourers in Ireland struck for the purpose of obtaining a benefit for themselves they did that which might not be very judicious, but which was perfectly lawful. But when they struck not with the object of benefiting themselves, but avowedly with the object of injuring their employers, they were doing that which the common sense of mankind declared ought to be put down. The Committee would not have been discussing the present question if the power of combination and striking had not been carried to an unlawful extent in Ireland. If it had been carried to such an extent in England, the Government would have been compelled long ago to put it down. In a liberty-loving country the combination of persons to effect a benefit for themselves was obliged to be tolerated, even if its effect were to cause some injury to other classes of persons, so long as it was not carried to an extreme extent. But the object preached to the labourer in Ireland was that he should strike, not for his own benefit, but for the purpose of inflicting injury on his employer. He trusted that the Government would not yield in the slightest degree on this clause, which, in his opinion, was more calculated to restore peace to Ireland 877 than any other measure which had been proposed. To suppose that the ordinary-strikes of labourers to obtain higher wages—at harvest time, for instance— would come within the scope of the Bill was absurd. But if hon. Members went about the country telling people to strike against their employers, and these people, having the fear of "Boycotting" before their eyes, did strike, to the injury of their employers—then, he said, it was a matter for the magistrate to judge; and it was only reasonable to give him credit for the possession of common sense in a matter the facts relating to which were before him. He was glad to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary that the Government intended to give legal assistance to the magistrates in the interpretation of this Bill when it passed into law; and he believed that by so doing the liberties of the people of Ireland would be completely preserved, and that that practice which might be said absolutely to have ruined the country would be put a stop to. He asserted positively that the feeling in Ireland with regard to this clause was very strong in its favour. ["No !"] Hon. Members opposite said "No !"but this was not a time for chopping logic upon a matter of this importance. It was a time for the exercise of that common sense which everyone possessed, or was supposed to possess. What they wanted to do was to put down "Boycotting," and unless that was done it was clear that the benefit of English law would be denied to persons in Ireland, The number of shopkeepers, labourers, and others, with their families, who had been ruined in consequence of this practice was almost incredible, and no one could deny that it ought to be put down.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, there appeared to be very little difference in principle between the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) as to what should be retained in this clause. But it seemed to him that the Prime Minister had a somewhat higher opinion of the Resident Magistrates, aided by barristers in the discharge of their duties, than that entertained by the hon. Member. It seemed to him that the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Broadhurst) had taken a very practical view of the situation, 878 inasmuch as a very little alteration in the Amendment of that hon. Member might be made to meet the views of both the hon. Member for the City of Cork and the Prime Minister. If the right hon. Gentleman considered this proposal a fair one, he thought there was no necessity for any further discussion of the clause. He suggested that the words of the Acts of 1871 and 1876 with regard to trades unions should be adopted. This, he thought, would cover what was suggested by the hon. Member for the City of Cork; and he did not think it went beyond what the Prime Minister was prepared to regard as the intentions of the Act. He thought that the discussion would be brought to an end very speedily if they could obtain some assurance that the words he had indicated would be inserted in the Bill.
§ MR. SYNANsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had, in his opinion, advanced a stronger argument in favour of the contention of the hon. Member for the City of Cork than any argument which he had listened to in the course of that discussion. The question they were considering was the intention with which any word or act was spoken or done. If the intent was to injure a person against whom an act was done, then no one would have any objection that this should come within the clause. But what did the right hon. and learned Gentleman say? He said that in Ireland the only intent with which workmen would withdraw from the service of their employers was for the sake of inflicting injury upon the landlords or upon the employers. He said that the labourers, when they withdrew from employment, would always avow that it was done for the purpose of raising their wages; but he did not believe one word of that. It would be done solely for the purpose of injuring the employer; and, therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman wanted that only one construction should be put upon this clause. They had arrived at the question—Was the act done with a double intent, or with an unmixed intent? The magistrate might either put it on the intent to raise wages, or he might put it on the intent of injuring the employer or landlord. It was not a single intent or motive—it was a double intent; and unless this could be made 879 clear under the construction of the clause —that it was done for the purpose of raising wages or reducing rent—the magistrates in Ireland would follow the lead of the right hon, and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, and would put it on the stronger intent of injuring the employer.
§ MR. STOREYsaid, he did not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) knew as much about strikes as he did about the law, or he would not have said that strikes in England took place for the sole purpose of raising wages. They had recently had a strike in the North of England of a very extensive character, in which a very large number of persons took part. In this case some employers were willing to give way and concede an increase of wages to a portion of the men on strike; but these refused the terms offered. The remainder of the employers would not yield. He put it to the Government, how would such a state of things as that agree with the construction of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, who said that when men in Ireland struck in order to get an advance of wages, they would be striking for the purpose of improving their condition, and would not be liable, but if they struck for the purpose of injuring the landlord, that that would be an offence for which they could be punished? Now, in the case he had referred to, the men to whom the employer offered an increase of wages were no longer striking for any benefit to themselves, but they continued to strike for the benefit of their brethren, to whom their employers did not offer an increase of wages. Now, he asked, would those men, who struck when the employers offered to give them an increase of wages, and who continued the strike for the sake of those whose employers would not give an increase of wages, be held by the magistrates in Ireland to be striking for their own benefit, or for the purpose of injuring their employers?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)was understood to say that in this case the intention was not the injury of the employer, but the benefit of their fellow-workmen.
§ MR. STOREYsaid, that was just his point. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General guarantee that that should be the construction of the 880 Act? Look at the wording of the clause. The hon. and learned Attorney General said that the men who continued on strike did not do so with the intention of injuring their employers; but he (Mr. Storey) asked whether they did not do this within the meaning of the words at the beginning of the clause "wrongfully, and without legal authority, uses intimidation," to cause their employers to pay more wages to somebody else than they wanted to pay? Did they not wrongfully, or might they not be held by the Resident Magistrate wrongfully, and without legal authority, to have used intimidation in order to put the landlord in fear of loss to his property, so that he might give them an increase of their wages? If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would convince him on that point, he would waive his objection to that portion of the clause; but he must toll him frankly that they in the North of England were perfectly well acquainted with the nature of strikes, and it was upon that knowledge that his objection to the clause rested. He did not want to oppose the Government; but he could not disguise from himself that as the magistrates in Ireland, who constituted a not impartial Court, would have to construe this clause, it was much more necessary to have an accurate definition than it would be if the matter had to be decided by the magistrates in England. If this accurate definition were not given, the result would be that legitimate combination among workmen, as well as the offence of "Boycotting," would be put down. He, therefore, impressed upon the Government that there should be some security for legitimate combination. In order to illustrate the difference between strikes in this country and in Ireland, he would mention that in the course of a strike which took place Sunderland among the shipwrights certain of the men were brought before the magistrates. Now, there were shipbuilders on the Bench, and these gentlemen did not take part in the proceedings, but left the Court, and the ease was adjudicated upon and satisfaction given to the men. But he wished to point out that in Ireland the Government were not, so to speak, going to remove the shipbuilders from the Bench; they were going to leave the landlords on the Bench to deal with matters in which their interests were 881 largely involved; and, therefore, he repeated that the Government ought to be doubly careful to have an extremely accurate and safe definition.
§ DR. COMMINSsaid, if the Act were to be interpreted by the Prime Minister he was sure there would not be the slightest chance of any injustice being done, because, according to the view stated by the right hon. Gentleman, the offence could only be committed when the act was done solely in order to prejudice the interests of a third party, or to injure his property. But, unfortunately, the word "solely" was not in the Bill, and, consequently, it would not be read in the Act by the magistrates; and those persons, when they found even a tendency to injure, would consider that quite enough for the purpose of conviction. He would like to remind the right hon. and learned Gentlemen the Home Secretary and the Attorney General of a legal principle which they appeared to have forgotten, and that was that in the interpretation of the Criminal Statutes every man was presumed to intend the natural and ordinary consequences of his acts. That principle had been laid down by every Judge upon the Bench, and the justice of it was obvious, because no one could dive into the recesses of the human mind. To say what was the intention of a man in any other sense was nothing else than the wildest speculation, and because this could not be ascertained the law established the canon of interpretation that everyone must be presumed to intend the natural consequences of his acts. Therefore, he said that the Judges and magistrates in Ireland were bound to interpret this Bill when it became law on the principle that whatever were the natural consequences of an act, these were to be taken as the intention of the person who did it; and, therefore, it would happen under this Act that whenever an injury might arise to a landlord, for instance, or a third party, by the act of a labourer or tenant, they would be held to have intended to produce that effect. He wished to refer to another remarkable oversight on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), who told them that during the last year or two Irish labourers had left their employment against their will, and not for the purpose of benefiting themselves. [The 882 right hon. and learned Gentleman said it was notorious that—
In Ireland during the last two years the great majority of labourers had left their employment against their will, and were ruined in consequence.It appeared to him that a sentence of six months' imprisonment with hard labour was a very extraordinary remedy to apply to the case of men who were so situated, because, according to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own argument, the position of those labourers was already sufficiently unfortunate. Now, Irish Members were willing that when an act was done solely for the purpose of injuring another—an act of intimidation, as they had it described in the Bill—it should be punished by all means. But they contended that this Act should not be left so loosely worded as to allow a magistrate to inflict the penalties which it contained on a person who acted for his own benefit, and not for the purpose of injuring another.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentlemen the Home Secretary and the Attorney General knew perfectly well what they meant by this clause, if the Prime Minister did not; and he asserted, without fear of contradiction, that the Prime Minister wished to remove the larger interpretation which they desired to place upon it. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) had put the case of a strike which occurred in his district. The question of a strike was a very pertinent one. Would the strikers who remained out when the majority of their own body had returned to work come under the provisions of this clause? "No," said the Attorney General, "because they remained out for the benefit of the workmen, and not for the injury of their employers." Now, he wanted the Attorney General to stick by that principle as laid down by himself. He said that a combination of that kind did not come under the clause, because the persons who took part in it wished to benefit their fellow - workmen. Was that the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman? If it was, he wished to know whether the strikers, by remaining out, did not injure their employer? If they injured their employer they would be supposed, according to a legal maxim, to intend to injure their employer; and, therefore, they 883 would injure him intentionally. If the Prime Minister would put into the clause words giving the interpretation he had himself attached to it, it would be perfectly satisfactory. The Irish Representatives would be quite willing to stop the discussion at once if the right hon. Gentleman would give them an undertaking that he would insert in the clause words to carry out the interpretation he himself had given. Would the right hon. Gentleman give them that undertaking or not; or would he allow himself to be dodged out of the concession he was supposed to have given? That was what the offer came to. The interpretation of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labou-chere), and of everybody in the House except the Home Secretary, the Attorney General, and the Prime Minister, was that if words of that kind were not inserted in the clause the right of combination was taken away. The Prime Minister said it must be proved that the object of the combination was not the benefit of those who combined; but the injury of the employer for the purpose of benefiting a third person. Was that so? The Irish Members wished to deal with the Government, and especially with the Prime Minister, in a perfect spirit of candour in respect to this clause. If the clause had in its intentional, legal, and honest common-sense interpretation only the meaning which the Prime Minister gave to it, they were willing to stop the discussion at once and accept that assurance. He would put the matter in this way. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee that if a number of labourers combined together to form a strike—supposing the object of the strike was to obtain for themselves higher wages—then it would not come under this clause according to the interpretation which the Prime Minister had himself put upon it; and in order to enable it to come under the clause the labourers must combine together, not for the purpose of increasing their own wages, but for the purpose of decreasing the rent of the landlords. He gathered that such a combination would come under the operation of the clause. In that case, who was to be the judge of the real object in view? The labourers said they struck for the purpose of getting higher wages; but the landlords, 884 who were of the same kidney as the magistrates who had to decide the case, said the object was a very different one; and the magistrate, siding with his friends, said—"I don't believe the story of these men. Although you are in rags, and evidently badly fed, you did not strike for the purpose of getting better houses or clothes, but for the purpose of reducing the landlord's rent." If people on strike in that way were brought before a magistrate, how could they help coming under the operation of the clause? Would they not have injured their employer by refusing to go back when the employer had offered concessions? Would they not have completely placed themselves under the operation of the Act? He would renew his offer of not opposing the clause if words were inserted giving effect to what the Prime Minister had stated to be the intention of the Government. Let the interpretation of the Prime Minister be given effect to in the clause so as to provide a safeguard, and at once the opposition to the clause would cease.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI do not know what value is to be attributed to an offer made in such a tone, and couched in such terms, as that which has just been made by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). The hon. Member has charged other hon. Members with "dodges." He charged the Attorney General and myself with deliberately having a different object from that which we have avowed. He says that the Prime Minister does not understand the clause, and that he does not understand the "dodges" played off by his Colleagues upon him. I say that that is language which it is not worth my while to review. Further than that, I venture to say that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister fully understands the clause. He understands it as we understand it, and both he and we, whatever the opinion of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) may be—and for that opinion I care very little, because I believe that the House of Commons will give us credit for acting in good faith—both he and we honestly mean what we say. And let me tell the hon. Member that the Government is not to be distinguished as between my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government and my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General and myself, on 885 each, of whom has devolved some responsibility in regard to this Bill. Language of this kind will not profit the hon. Member, unworthy as it is of himself and of those whom he addresses. I have nothing more to say, except that the Bill, as it has been explained by my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, is perfectly clear and intelligible. We have said exactly what we mean, and it is utterly unnecessary to add anything to it.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman stated a few nights ago, in answer to the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), that it did not matter what statements might be made by any Minister in that House when the time came for judicially interpreting the words of an Act of Parliament. No matter what the statements might have been, the interpretation of the tribunals which had to administer the Act would be quite irrespective of any statement of a Minister. He did not for a moment question the assurance which had been given by the Prime Minister, or the interpretation which he had put upon the clause; but it was because the Irish Members felt and believed that when the Bill came to be administered by the magistrates an entirely different view of the offences which came within the Act would be taken from that which was taken by the Prime Minister, that they asked for words to be inserted in the clause which should convey to the mind of every magistrate that such words meant what they were asserted to mean by the Prime Minister. Of course, it was a matter of great importance that they should know whether or not a combination, the objects of which had been publicly avowed, such as a combination on the part of agricultural labourers to secure better wages, was legal or not. There was at the present moment in Ireland an Agricultural Labourers' League. He had seen the resolutions passed at a meeting of that League the other day, and one of those resolutions pointed out that the farmers of the country had not availed themselves of the power given to them by the Land Act of 1881 to erect decent cottages for their labourers. They contended that, owing to the wretched condition in which the labourers found themselves, they had a right to combine and a right to refuse to work for farmers who had not availed themselves of the 886 provisions of the Act. He understood from the statement made by the Prime Minister that such a combination would be perfectly lawful; and he considered that such an admission from such a quarter was of the utmost value. No one could deny that labourers had a perfect right to combine to compel the tenants to comply with the provisions of the Land Act, in giving them better houses than they now had, and their half-acre of ground. What they wished to know was, that if there was a combination for that purpose, they and the Irish labourers should understand that, by the declaration of the Prime Minister, such a combination, carried on in a legal manner, would not come within the operation of the Act. He was glad that such a declaration had been made, and he hoped that it would have its full effect upon the Irish magistrates who were to administer the law. At the same time, he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to give a promise that, on the Report stage of the Bill, he would put into the clause words which would convey, beyond all question, the intentions of the House.
MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he was sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had imparted so much warmth into his observations. They had been discussing this clause for four or five days, and they had arrived nearly at a settlement of it. What the Prime Minister had said was of the utmost value, and it was agreed to in spirit by the Irish Members. If they could have the spirit of it put into words, all opposition to the clause would terminate; if not, there would still be a prolonged fight, and the conclusion of this business, which they all desired to see terminated, would be delayed. The only matter between them was simply a difference of words; and, having got so near to an agreement, he thought they might easily go a step further and settle their differences. He hoped the Government would accept the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy); and if the Home Secretary would not, or could not, see his way to the adoption of specific words now, he hoped he would give an assurance that upon the Report stage of the Bill words would be brought up to convey the meaning. If such a course were taken, he believed the discussion would be very 887 much shortened. As the matter stood, they had a general agreement as to the object to be obtained, and only a difference of opinion as to the way in which that object was to be gained. The fear and dread which hon. Members from Ireland had in their minds was that the Bill would be interpreted by the magistrates to the prejudice of the persons who were combining. That was a feeling which might be a false one; but, nevertheless, it existed, and there ought to be words inserted in the clause to prevent its being realized, As the object they all wished to gain was the same, he thought the Government would do well, in the general interests of the progress of Public Business, to give an assurance of this hind.
§ MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he had no wish to waste the time of the Committee in discussing the matter; but he desired to join in the request made to the Government that they would adopt some such method as had been suggested. If that were done it would tend considerably to remove the opposition to the clause, and would make the matter perfectly clear. He had given Notice of an Amendment, which appeared on the last page of the Paper, to except trade associations from the operation of the Act, because he considered he was bound to do his best to secure to the trade associations of Ireland the same liberty of action in regard to their own interests, and to secure it beyond doubt, as that which was now enjoyed by the trade associations of Great Britain. He had been somewhat surprised to hear the statement which had been made by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey). He understood the hon. Member to say that a number of employers in the district with which he was connected had conceded all that was asked, and, because a number of other persons did not give way, many of the men who had agreed to give way refused to return to work. Now, that was the most extraordinary proceeding that had ever come under his notice with regard to strikes. In all similar cases with which he had been connected the custom had been, where concessions had been made and the men had agreed to return to work, that they should go to work and contribute a day's wages towards the support of those who were still holding out. There were many obvious advan- 888 tages in that course; one of which was that contracts, which would otherwise go in other directions, would be enjoyed by the firm which had agreed to work. He only mentioned this because the hon. Member's authority upon these matters was undoubted in the North of England, and ho wished to say that no such circumstance had ever come under his notice. He would only add that no language, however annoying or improper that language might be, should for a moment prevent the Government from considering the desirability of inserting words such as had been suggested, either at this stage of the Bill, or at a future stage. If the Government would agree to do it, it would afford much satisfaction to a very large number of Members, and would greatly facilitate the progress of the Bill, and would do away with a great deal of the opposition now made to it.
§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, he understood the demand of the Irish Members to be, not for a definition of the offences which might come under the clause, but for a clear declaration as to the offences the clause was intended to meet, so as to exclude a certain class of acts from the operation of the Bill. The Irish Members had come down very much in their demands, and, instead of asking what were to be offences, all they asked of the Government now was that certain things should be guarded against being offences. What really gave strength to the opposition which the Irish Members had raised to the clause was the nature of the tribunal which was to administer the law. Of course, that was to be a matter for subsequent discussion; but it was their distrust of the tribunal which animated them now. It was a conflict between the classes the Act was brought in to put down, and those who were to put them down; because the Judges who would sit to decide these cases belonged to a class which was eminently one of the conflicting parties, and which had no sympathy, either by education or tradition, with the other classes they would have to deal with. Under these circumstances, it was not unreasonable to ask that the Government should take this question into their serious consideration, and give some assurance, or hold out some hope, that by the introduction of words into the clause, or otherwise, they would ex- 889 clude a particular set of circumstances from the jurisdiction of the local magistrates who would have to administer the law.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought he had already stated more than once, and, if necessary, he was prepared to state it again, that the Government were perfectly willing, not only on the Report, but even before the Report upon the clause of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), or upon any other question, to do what ought to be done in this matter by providing a saving clause. He thought that was the proper way of dealing with the matter, and he had already stated so on Friday night, and again that afternoon.
§ MR. MARUMsaid, that in the first place, in order to constitute an offence under the Act, there were certain things which must have been done. Secondly, they must have been done wilfully, and without legal authority; and, thirdly, they must have been of an intimidating character; and, fourthly, they must have been done with one of the intents mentioned in the clause. Those four elements were necessary to constitute a crime. Hon. Members in that House all knew that; hut the unfortunate people of Ireland would not know it. If any one of these elements was absent, the three other elements would not constitute an offence. In this state of circumstances, what had been asked by the Irish Representatives? They proposed to insert a qualification, that any one particular element standing alone—such as a refusal to work—should not constitute an offence. That had been the great question agitating the minds of hon. Members on that side of the House, and all they desired was that the Government should incorporate in the Act something that would satisfy the public mind that all the four elements were necessary, and that the absence of one solitary element of the four would be sufficient to vitiate the whole proceeding. He hoped the Government would see their way to put some expression in the Bill that would make that perfectly clear. It would have a reassuring effect, and would accomplish what he understood the Prime Minister intended to convoy.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had stated, in the course of the few observa- 890 tions he had made, that there was a strong feeling in Ireland in favour of this clause. He (Mr. Callan) was not aware, although he was a regular reader of the Irish newspapers, that such a statement had ever appeared in any of them. Nor could the hon. Member have heard it from any of his constituents, and, in all likelihood, the opinion had been evolved from the hon. Member's own inner consciousness. The hon. Member had also taken occasion to state that he was not in favour of coercion; but, by the course he had taken that night, the hon. Member had shown that he was carrying out, in the year 1882, the principles which guided and directed him 10 years ago, when the first speech he made and the first vote he gave in that House was in favour of coercion for Ireland. It was said that the labourers might strike for their own benefit. He thanked the Government for that admission; but it was coupled with the statement that a strike would be an offence if it did an injury to the landlord. Therefore, although the labourers might strike for the legal object of benefiting themselves, it was contended that they would render themselves amenable to the penal provisions of this clause, if, by their strike, they committed an injury to their landlord. Now, he (Mr. Callan) had taken some interest in the Labour Question in Ireland, and he had lately been in communication with the leaders of that movement in the county he had the honour to represent. Although the Land Act had been some eight or 10 months in existence, he found that the Sub-Commissioners acting under it had not yet, in a single instance, in the county of Louth, made a rule that labourers' cottages should he erected, and that proper allotments of land should be set apart for them. Although there had been numerous agreements for the fixing of a fair judicial rent, yet in no single instance had provision been made for carrying out the clause of the Land Act in regard to the erection of labourers' dwellings. Under these circumstances, he had advised the labourers to take a course which was at present perfectly legal. It was the custom of the country for the labourers to bind themselves for a term of 12 months, and they were bound, during that term, except in the case of illness, to work for the farmer with whom they had en- 891 gaged, and for him only. But during the harvest time the farmers required double the number of labourers than at ordinary times, and he had advised the labourers that they should enter into a combination not merely to benefit themselves, but to injure the farmers, who had not provided proper accommodation for the benefit of their labourers. He had remonstrated with the farmers themselves without effect, and he had now advised the labourers to enter into a combination not to work for any farmer who had not built proper dwellings for his regular labourers. He wished to know from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, who was about, he believed, to ascend the Judicial Bench, whether such a combination would be legal? Hitherto the Home Secretary, in taking charge and control of the Bill, seemed to have ignored altogether the views of the Attorney and Solicitor General for Ireland, and to have taken into his counsel the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) only. Ho was most anxious to learn whether the "term labourer," who combined to refuse to work for the farmers under these circumstances, would come within this clause? If they were brought before the magistrates charged with "intimidation" within the meaning of the Act, it would be in vain for them to plead that they had combined for the benefit of themselves, if the magistrates held that by so doing they injured the business of the farmers, and prevented them from properly cultivating their farms. It was not deemed illegal in England for workmen to subscribe a day's wages to provide for the families of other workmen who refused to work for masters who would not concede their demands. If this clause passed without some words of limitation or explanation, the result would be to prevent any combination of a class for the advancement of its own interests.
§ Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he rose to support the proposition that any Amendment which the Government were prepared to accept on this subject ought to be accepted on this clause, and inserted in this clause, or as an addition to this clause. The Amendment of the 892 hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) seemed, on the face of it, to be justice and moderation itself. It provided—
That nothing heroin contained shall be deemed to oblige any person to do any act which such person has a legal right to abstain from doing, or to abstain from doing any act which such person has a legal right to do.However the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary might try to turn and distort the Amendment, it followed most accurately the language of the clause; and if it was unjust, the clause itself was unjust. The Prime Minister had said he would be pleased to insert, in some other part of the Bill, words which would allow a class to combine against their employers for its own benefit, but which would treat as intimidation a combination of a class for any other objects than those peculiar to itself and directly benefiting itself. Now, of course, that was an advantage to a certain extent. Even such a concession as that allowed some small area of combination to be free and open to the Irish people. The words of the Prime Minister, however, ought to be introduced in this clause; they ought to be introduced while the Committee were engaged in the discussion of this clause, because both the strength and weakness of the clause were present to the minds of hon. Gentlemen. They were all perfectly conversant with the subject; every point in relation to the subject was fresh in their minds; but if they allowed the clause to pass unamended, in the expectation of a new clause being introduced somewhere later on to deal with the particular question now before them, they would, to a large extent, have to do all their work over again; they would have to reconsider the whole question; they would have to raise again all the points which they had been trying for the last three or four days to settle. Merely on the point of economy of time and fitness, they ought to finish the clause while they were upon it, and not have to take the question up in the form of a new clause at a time when a good deal had faded from the minds of the Committee. There was another objection to the sort of postponement pleaded for by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. They were asked to let go of the present clause without exactly knowing what for. They had not the words of the intended concession of the 893 Government before them. He maintained that, even if the concession was to be introduced in a future clause, they ought, before they left this clause, to know, at any rate, what would be the exact form of the concession. They would then know what they were to get by consenting to the despatch of this clause as the Government desired. It seemed to him that, however clear, generally speaking, the purport of a speech might be, when they tried to put that general purport into a set form of words, they found that the difficulty arose because the form of words might be such as to necessitate some action on the part of the magistrates who were to administer the clause, which would be very objectionable. The Committee ought to have the words of the proposed concession before them, so that they might satisfy themselves as to the manner in which the magistrates, who were distrusted by the Irish people, were to act. To say that a combination of a class in Ireland for its own interests should be lawful, but that a combination of a class to promote the interests of any other class should be unlawful, was, he confessed, a singularly unsatisfactory form of expression. When labourers struck in England there was no such nice examination of the pros, and cons, of the question. When the agricultural labourers struck some time ago — and strikes of these labourers were not always in consequence of local grievances, but sometimes in consequence of a desire of the labourers of one county to support those of another county—the right of English labourers to combine was so strictly guarded that, when a rumour arose that the War Office was lending the services of the soldiers to the embarrassed farmers for the purpose of doing the work of the labourers on strike, questions were asked in this House; and at once the then War Minister—he believed it was the Secretary for War in the late Government—replied that great care would be taken that the soldiers should not be employed by any farmers in the place of the labourers on strike. The case he had referred to illustrated the sanctity with which the right of English labourers to strike was surrounded. Let them test the Prime Minister's definition of what was legal and what was illegal by an example. The Prime Minister said—and he (Mr. 894 O'Donnell) was happy to have the matter explained satisfactorily by any Member of the Government—the right hon. Gentleman said that the combination of a class in its own behalf would be a legal combination, even if this Bill was passed into law; but that a combination of a class on behalf of another class would be an illegal combination, and would be punishable under the summary powers of the Act by six months' imprisonment with hard labour. Let them take, for example, a combination of tenants upon an estate, or upon a number of estates, for the purpose of obtaining a reduction of rents. The Prime Minister admitted that, under this Bill, just as before the Bill, such a combination would be legal, because it was a combination of tenants for their own benefit. But let them go a step further. Suppose the landlords of the estates on which the tenants had combined in their own interests also combined to hold out against the tenants, converted all the tillage farms into pasture land, and then applied to a number of labourers or herdsmen to work on the pasture lands. All this was done, let the Committee suppose, for the purpose of effectually thwarting the determination of the tenants; and let them suppose, further, that the agricultural labourers or herdsmen refused to work upon the new pasture lands, which had been converted by the landlords into such lands from tillage farms, in order to defeat the combination of the tenants. Was he to understand that the refusal of the labourers to help the landlords to break down the combination of the farmers would be treated as a criminal offence on the part of the labourers? If so, human sympathy itself would be made penal, and the feeling of man for man would be made a crime. Let them suppose that this clause was passed without any amendment, which would prevent such a monstrous exercise of tyrannical power as that, and then let them test the working of this unamended clause in another way. Let them imagine that (he magistrates empowered to carry out this law did, when labourers refusing in any way to co-operate with the landlords in breaking down the combination of the tenants, were brought before them, throw them into prison, was there any idea on the part of any sensible man in that House that such an exercise of 895 the powers of this Act would produce anything but semi-insurrection in the district? Let them take the example of a large district in which the tenants had been on strike. The landlords used their powers to evict those tenants, and then, as he had before premised, applied to the agricultural labourers or herdsmen of the district to assist them, by turning the land into pasture land, in defeating all hope of the tenants coming back on the land; let them suppose that the labourers and herdsmen refused to ally themselves with the landlords, and that, in consequence of their refusal, a large number of them were seized by the magistrates, and thrown into prison for six months with hard labour. He defied any Government exercising the powers of this Act in that manner to hold Ireland with less than 200,000 men. If the magistrates were to throw into prison labourers who combined in refusing, in such a case, to assist the landowners who were the common oppressors of tenants and labourers alike, the people of the district would infallibly be driven to semi-insurrection. If the object of the Government was to introduce in Ireland law and order, instead of an extended area of illegality and disorder, it was absolutely necessary for them to clearly define what kinds of combination they would allow, to take care to define legal combination in such a manner as to allow of its use for every real and legitimate purpose. If the Government did not do this, the result of the operation of the Bill would be widespread illegality and crime; and the crime, in that case, would assume, in the eyes of nine-tenths of the population, the appearance of legitimate defence. If half the population was to be bullied and restricted in its actions in consequence of its sympathy with the other half, a state of things would be created which no ingenuity could distinguish from the legitimate resistance of the people to unlawful tyranny.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: —Ayes 33; Noes 96: Majority 63.—(Div. List, No. 127.)
§ MR. HEALYmoved, in page 3, line 29, after "living," insert—
Provided, That membership of any association or organization for political or social purposes, the rules, objects and constitution of which are legal, shall not render any member of such 896 association or organization liable to a charge of intimidation, or for any acts done by any other person to which such member has not been a consenting party.The object of the Amendment must be clear to the Committee. It was that no organization of a political or social character should be rendered illegal by the clause. He and his hon. Friends feared that the Government would say there were certain organizations of this character the mere membership of which was illegal; they wished to have it distinctly stated by the Government that the system of constructive intimidation which was pursued by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster') should not be carried out under the new regime. The late Chief Secretary held that if a man was a member of a local Land League, he was responsible for everything done by the organization. If a number of tenants on an estate agreed that they would refuse to pay rent except at a reduction of 25 per cent, the right hon. Gentleman held that the whole of them had been guilty of intimidation. This Amendment was to relieve a member of any particular association from the responsibility of any acts to which he had not been a consenting party. The Committee had heard a great deal from the Government as to what they were willing to do to conserve the rights of association. It was surprising to him that they did not put clearly on the Paper what they were going to do. Promises had been given by the Home Secretary and the Attorney General. Promises as to what was to be done had been repeated for the 20th time; and yet, for the 20th time, the Irish Members were to get up and ask what it was the Government were going to give them? It was high time an understanding was arrived at on the point. It seemed to him that when dealing with the Irish Members the Government did not think it necessary to adhere to the common usages of the House—that was, that where a promise was given, and where reasonable time had been allowed, the Government should put their views upon paper. It was all very well for the Home Secretary to say he would propose an Amendment to preserve the rights granted in the Act of 1875. Why did not the right hon. and learned Gentleman put his intentions into words, and let those words 897 appear on the Paper? There were two Irish Law Officers who, as far as could be judged, had not very much to do with the Bill. Why did not the Government employ those Gentlemen to draw up the Amendment, so that the Committee could have the intentions of the Government in black and white? The Irish Members had proposed Amendment after Amendment; but they had been resisted by the very Gentlemen who admitted there was a vacuum, but who did not supply it. There seemed to be a wish to lure the Irish Representatives on, so that they might get to the end of the Bill before they knew exactly what the Government were going to do. Why should the Government treat himself and his hon. Friends in any different manner than they treated the Tories on the Land Bill? On that occasion the Tories had simply to ask that the Government Amendments should be put on the Paper, and the request was immediately conrplied with. His Amendment was a most moderate one, and he trusted the Government would see their way to accept it. It was most unsatisfactory to Irish Members to be met with the statement that the Government would consider their proposals, and see what could be done at a later stage of the Committee or on Report. In respect to this particular Amendment, he hoped they would hear a distinct statement as to the intentions of the Government.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 29, after "living," insert "Provided, That membership of any association or organization for political or social purposes, the rules, objects and constitution of which are legal, shall not render any member of such association or organization liable to a charge of intimidation, or for any acts done by any other person to which such member has not been a consenting party."—(Mr. Healy.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the Amendment was about as relevant to the clause as it would be if it related to sheep stealing. He had no objection whatever to there being a saving clause making the declaration that the Bill was not intended to interfere with organizations for mere political purposes. There was nothing in the clause which had the slightest tendency to make the membership of an association for purely political purposes unlawful. He presumed what 898 the hon. Member wanted was a declaration that the Bill was not intended to interfere with a legitimate political organization. When they came to Clause 6, which had relation to unlawful associations, they would consider the advisability of such an Amendment as was now proposed; but, at this stage of the Bill, the Amendment was, undoubtedly, out of place.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, it was all very well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say this Amendment had no more relation to the clause than if it had dealt with sheep stealing. The Irish Members knew a great deal more about Ireland than the Home Secretary did, and they knew exactly how the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), who invented the intimidation business, had worked the business. The Homo Secretary would excuse him for saying there was a great deal more relevancy in the Amendment than there would have been if it had referred to sheep stealing. The present argument of the Government was only a specimen of the sort of argument to which they had been treated all through by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary. The right hon. and learned "Gentleman appeared to think it was quite sufficient to satisfy the Irish Members for him to get up and deliver a sacramental utterance from the Treasury Bench. Irish Members, however, refused to recognize the right hon. and learned Gentleman's high priestly oratory. He challenged any hon. Gentleman to find sense or logic in what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said in reply to his Amendment. What could be done with a Government, when its Representative, in a particular instance, instead of meeting arguments by counter arguments, said—"We cannot accept this Amendment; it would be just as relevant if it related to sheep stealing?" Such was the way, indeed, in which the Committee had been treated all along by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He (Mr. Healy) ventured to say, that if anybody else had been in charge of the Bill it would have got through in three days. They wore now, however, for the fourth day, on Clause 4; they proposed Amendment after Amendment; but they were told that the Government could not accept them, for some reasons or other which were wrapped up in such an 899 amount of mystery that no one could understand them. This Committee was supposed to be conducted in a reasonable spirit; they were supposed to debate Amendments; but it was impossible to do so when there was nothing tangible to lay hold of in the replies of the Home Secretary.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it was painful, considering how anxious they were that this Bill should pass, that they should meet so much obstruction at the hands of the Home Secretary. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had throughout taken a fair and reasonable view of the Amendments, and had, if he could urge nothing substantial against them, agreed to them, he (Mr. Labouchere) was perfectly certain the Bill would have already passed through the Committee stage. In meeting the present Amendment the right hon. and learned Gentleman said it was just as relevant as if it applied to sheep stealing. If it would do no harm, why should not the Home Secretary admit it in the Bill? If hon. Gentlemen from Ireland were of opinion that the Amendment would do good, and if the Homo Secretary was of opinion it would do no harm, it did seem to amount to obstruction on the part of the Home Secretary if he would engage in two or three nights' wrangle rather than assent to it. He and certain Members of the Committee might be fools—perhaps they were. Anyhow, let the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognize the fact, and treat them according to their folly. He considered the Amendment was exceedingly pertinent to the Bill. What did it say? It said—
That membership of any association or organization for political or social purposes, the rules, objects, and constitution of which are legal, shall not render any member of such association or organization liable to a charge of intimidation, or for any acts done by any other persons to which such member has not been a consenting party.Now, let them suppose that it was intended to carry on a Tenant League Association in Ireland. A Tenant League Association was perfectly legal; it existed in England. What he understood hon. Gentlemen opposite were anxious to know was this—whether, if they were members of such an association, they would be liable for any loose word which was used in Tipperary by some person 900 who was also a member of the association? He was perfectly certain that was not the intention of the Bill; but hon. Gentlemen believed that the Bill might be so twisted by the Resident Magistrates who had to administer the law. What earthly objection could there be on the part of the Home Secretary to allow the insertion in the Bill of some Amendment to guard against such an interpretation as hon. Gentlemen feared? Hon. Gentlemen did not ask that it should be inserted in this particular part of the Bill. If the Home Secretary thought it should not be inserted here, they were perfectly willing to have it inserted in another part of the Bill. All they asked was that words which conveyed the same meaning as the Amendment should be somewhere inserted.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that if he rightly understood what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), there was no difference in substance between hon. Members opposite and the Government, because the Home Secretary had declared his intention and his desire to make adequate security in the Bill for the freedom of political association and organization; so that, in regard to that description of liberty in Ireland, there could be no fear. His right hon. and learned Friend had said—and he quite agreed—that it would be much more convenient to insert a provision to that effect in a distinct and separate clause than to attach it to this particular clause, because, if it were attached to this particular clause, to which he thought it had no special or proper relevancy, it might be interpreted to apply to this particular clause alone; whereas, if it were put in as a separate clause it would override the whole Bill, it would affect all the clauses equally, and it would be more efficacious for its purpose. He hoped, therefore, there would be no inclination to press the matter further.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he would be happy to meet the wishes of the Government by withdrawing the Amendment. It was a pleasure to deal with the Prime Minister, because from him they always received satisfaction. He would, however, ask the Government to put their words on the Paper. Surely, that was not too much to ask. He trusted he and his hon. Friends would find, on the part of the Government, the same desire to 901 meet their wishes as they had always displayed to meet the wishes of the Tory Party. Whenever the Tory Party asked to have Amendments put on the Paper, the Government immediately consented to produce them. The Irish Members ought to be treated according to the relevancy and scope of their arguments, and not as though they were a handful of 20 men. He would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment; but he hoped that when they met to-morrow they would find the Government Amendments on the Paper.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, the Government sincerely wished to carry out the general views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member (Mr. Healy) asked why the Government treated a small Party in a manner different from that in which they would treat the Conservative Opposition? It was because hon. Members below the Gangway opposite had shown a little less confidence in the willingness of the Government to carry out its promises than the Government thought ought to be shown. He assured hon. Members in that quarter of the House that the Government were sincerely anxious to put the clauses on the Paper as soon as possible. He would engage, that as soon as the matter had been matured to the satisfaction of the right hon. and learned Gentlemen in charge of the Bill, the clauses should be placed on the Paper.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. SYNANmoved, in page 3, line 29, after "living," insert—
Provided, That any agreement, or any lawful act in pursuance thereof, by or among tenants, to support each other in demanding a reduction of rents, or any act to persuade others by argument to do the same, or any agreement or lawful act of labourers to support each other in demanding an increase of wages or more convenient conditions of labour, or to persuade others by argument to do the same, or any combination for political or social purposes and legitimate objects by constitutional means, shall not be considered as illegal within the meaning of this Act.He could not see what objection there could be to the first two branches of his Amendment, but he presumed the latter part would be open to the same objection as the Amendment which had just been withdrawn. After a long discussion they had come to the conclusion that the definition of intimidation could 902 not be exhausted by illustration; and, therefore, in his opinion, the only way to define the offence was by a negative process—namely, by telling the people of Ireland what should not be within the meaning of the clause. The people ought to know whether combination for a legal purpose, with legal motives and legal intentions, would come within the meaning of the clause or not. They had a good illustration before the Committee a few moments ago, in which it was in the power of the magistrate either to say that an act was done with the intent of intimidating, or it was not done with the intent of intimidating. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) made the extraordinary statement that if a labourer in Ireland stated that he did a certain act for the purpose of increasing his wages no one would believe him, but the magistrate would believe he did it for the purpose of intimidating his employer. So they had it upon the authority of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that even if a labourer said he had done a certain act or spoken a certain word for the purpose of obtaining a rise of wages, the Court before whom he was brought would not believe it. If the Home Secretary objected to the latter part of his Amendment, he would gladly withdraw it and bring it up subsequently. The two first portions of the Amendment, he maintained, were absolutely necessary to protect innocent people from the punishment provided in the clause. Let them look at the clause, and see whether it was requisite for the protection of the tenants and labourers that this qualification or saving clause should be inserted. The clause said that—Any word spoken or act done calculated to put any person in fear of any injury or danger to himself, or to any member of his family, or to any person in his employment, or in fear of any injury to or loss of his property, business, or means of living.Suppose the tenants combined and applied to the landlord for a reduction of rent, it would be for the magistrate to decide whether they so combined with the intent to injure the landlord in his person, or property, or business, or means of living. In the same way, if any labourers combined for the purpose of obtaining an increase of wages, it would be, under the clause as it 903 now stood, in the power of the magistrate to say whether or not they so acted to injure their employer. The tenants might say they had combined to get a reduction of rents, and the labourers might say they had combined to get an increase of wages; but, in the opinion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, that would be all sham and pretence, and no man in Ireland would believe a word the men said. Because he believed the Amendment he had proposed would afford some protection to men who combined with a lawful intention, he commended it to the Committee.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 29, after "living," insert "Provided, That any agreement or any lawful act in pursuance thereof, by or among tenants, to support each other in demanding a reduction of rents, or any act to persuade others by argument to do the same, or any agreement or lawful act of labourers to support each other in demanding an increase of wages or more convenient conditions of labour, or to persuade others by argument to do the same, or any combination for political or social purposes and legitimate objects by constitutional means, shall not be considered as illegal within the meaning of this Act."—(Mr. Syrian.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ MR. DILLONsaid, he rose to support the Amendment, and in doing so he would like to put a few questions to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill. It had been stated from the Treasury Bench, to his intense surprise, that it was notorious that in England strikes only took place for the purpose of obtaining an increase of wages. He did not know very much about English strikes, and that was news to him. He wished to ask men who did know England better than he did whether it did not often happen, if an employer dismissed the ringleaders of the union, the men of the union did not strike work with the object of compelling the employer to take back their leaders? If that be true, and if this Act applied to England, would not the workmen be clearly and distinctly and undeniably guilty of intimidation? And if that were done in Ireland, would not the men be liable, under this clause, to six months' imprisonment with hard labour? The Attorney General said it was realty the intent that made the crime. Did 904 the men who in England struck work in order to compel their employers to take back certain other men do it for their own benefit? He had only mentioned one case, but it was a case so strongly in favour of the contention of the Irish Members that there was no necessity to go further in the way of illustration. If the Government were not able to declare that what he had stated now was not permissible under the law in England, he did not see how they could continue to assert that the rights of labourers in Ireland would be as safe as they were at present under the law of England. The Committee had been told that they might rest perfectly certain that in case labourers in Ireland struck work, or left their employment for their own benefit, this Act would not be put in force against them; but they had the declaration of a right hon. and learned Gentleman, who represented more accurately than any other hon. Member the magistrates who would have to interpret this Act—they had his declaration that it was notorious that, no matter whether a labourer in Ireland said ho had left his employment for his own benefit or not, he was not to be believed.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, what he had endeavoured to convey to the Committee was, that if one particular intent was alleged, the ingenuity of the race was such that he had very little doubt they would make out another intent.
§ MR. DILLONasked what was the conclusion they must arrive at even from the explanation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman? It was that because they might have the intent to coerce their masters, and the ingenuity of their race enabled them to prove another intent, they were not to be able to follow their employment at all. The statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was simply this. So great was the ingenuity of the Irish labourers and the Irish agitator that they would be able to prove they acted with some other intent than the one alleged, and, therefore, they must not be allowed to do the act at all. The right hon. and learned Gentleman liked to put the thing in an attractive form; but that was his opinion, it was the opinion of the class for whom he spoke, it was the opinion of the magistrates of Ireland. The magistrates would simply ask the landlord of the district whether 905 he believed the act complained of was done with intent to coerce him, and his word would unquestionably stand before that of the labourer. There were in every district of Ireland men who were marked. They were the men—farmers and labourers—who had incurred the odium of all the landowners of their county or district, because they were the local leaders of the Land movement. He wished to ask whether, if these men were dismissed their employment, and if their fellow-labourers struck work in order to compel the landlords to take the dismissed men back, the men who had struck work would be liable to punishment under this clause? Clearly, in the words of the clause, they would strike in order to intimidate men to do "an act which they had a legal right to abstain from doing"—namely, to take back certain men whom they had dismissed because they had become obnoxious. Would the Government say that the right of labourers to strike, in the case he had cited, did not exist in every workshop in England? Did not the Government know that many leaders of unions in England would have been ruined if it had not been for the existence of the right of strike to compel their return? It was well known that in Ireland many men who had been loyal to the Land League would have been hunted from their employment had it not been for the protection afforded them by the sympathy of the district; it was well known that many men who had been starved out by the landlords of the district unless the League had come to their aid. It was the duty of the Government to answer this question. Might labourers strike with the object of compelling landlords to take back certain obnoxious men who had been driven from their employment on account of the political views they held? There was another branch of the question which deserved consideration. If the tenants in Ireland combined for the purpose of getting a reduction of rents, would that or would it not be treated as an offence under this Act? That was a question which would strike home immediately, and, so far, the Government had made no definite statement with regard to it. He knew of estates in the West of Ireland on which the tenants were in a state of complete destitution. He believed that the proper way for these tenants to avail themselves 906 of the Arrears Act would be to meet together, and go to their landlords and say—"We can only give you a small portion of your year's rent." If they did meet and consult together, would they be held guilty of an offence under this Act? It might be said that the Act would not deal with every mere act of combination and with every word spoken and act done. With such a statement he and his hon. Friends could not be satisfied. What they wanted to know was, would it be held to be an offence under the Act if certain tenants came together and agreed to simultaneously ask for a reduction of rent? If the Government would say that under no circumstances would that be held to be an offence many objections to the Bill would be removed. He was entitled to a clear and distinct answer as to whether the right of combination and strike, which he had shown now existed in England, would, after the passing of this Act, exist in Ireland?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)asked the Committee to recollect what was the particular Amendment before them. His hon. Friend (Mr. Synan) had kindly supplied him with a copy of the Amendment, but the handwriting was so like his own that he had great difficulty in understanding what the Amendment was. As the Amendment had been put by the Chairman, he gathered that it embraced three points. Two of those points had been disposed of already, and the third point had just been raised by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). The Home Secretary and the Prime Minister promised that a saving clause should be inserted with respect to combinations for political and social purposes, and thereupon the hon. Member for Wexford withdrew his Amendment. The only difference between this and some previous Amendments was that it referred to combinations of labourers and tenants for the purpose of securing some object peculiar to themselves. The Home Secretary and the Prime Minister had repeated over and over again that a fair or political combination to obtain, by fair discussion and agitation, that which, was a legal result would not be dealt with by this Act; and there had been a promise made by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutentant of Ireland that a general saving clause to pro- 907 tect such fair discussion and such fair political action, should be placed on the Paper as soon as possible. If that which was referred to in this Amendment came within that fair agitation and that fair discussion, the saving clause of the Government would cover it, and it would not be considered an offence. If what the Amendment contemplated amounted to that intimidation which would prevent a landlord acting as was suggested in Sub-section a, or cause him to abstain from a legal act mentioned in Sub-section b, it would be an offence. All this had been stated over and over again. This Amendment really seemed a serving up of previous Amendments, and he asked whether they were not now repeating old attacks and defences of the Bill?
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he and his hon. Friends renewed their attacks over and over again because the right hon. and learned Gentleman had given an answer which he knew was no answer. The Government were asked whether farmers would be allowed to combine for the purpose of obtaining a reduction of rents, and whether labourers would be allowed to combine for the purpose of obtaining an increase of wages? Eight hon. Gentlemen came down to the House and said these men would be allowed to combine if their combination was legitimate. They, however, left the legality or the legitimacy entirely to the judgment of the magistrate. What was wanted was that the lines between legality and illegality should be strictly laid down in the clause. They had asked the Home Secretary over and over again to do that, and that was what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had over and over again refused to do. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had just said—"Yes, the farmers and the labourers will be allowed to combine if they don't come under Sub-sections a and b of this Act." What was Subsection a? It was a sub-section rendering it illegal to cause a person to abstain from doing what he had a legal right to do, or to do what he had a legal right to abstain from doing. A landlord had a perfectly legal right to refuse to reduce his rents; therefore a combination to cause him to reduce them would come under this section. An employer of labour had a perfect right to 908 refuse to raise the wages of his workpeople; therefore a combination to cause him to raise them would come under the section. He wished the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would acquire a little ingenuousness as well as acumen, and would learn to give a plain answer to a plain question.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) had referred to English trades unions with far greater accuracy than the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson). The organizations referred to by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Healy) were clearly organizations for social purposes. He would suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn, believing that it would be better, before proceeding further with it, to see the clause the Government proposed to lay before the Committee.
§ MR. SYNANsaid, he thought that, on the whole, the best course to take would be to withdraw the Amendment, and make it the subject of a clause, in case the suggestion of the Government was not satisfactory.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, that before the Chairman put the Question, "That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill," he wished to propose an Amendment which would not come within the censure pronounced against the last one or two Amendments that had been moved; and he trusted that in so doing they would be able to draw out of the right hon. and learned Gentleman more of his mind than he had hitherto, in his discretion, thought it desirable to part with. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that he could not agree to the Amendments of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) and the hon. Member for the County of Limerick (Mr. Synan), because they would interfere with the subject of some subsequent clauses he proposed to bring up for protecting the right of combination, association, and so forth. But the Irish Members felt that if the clause passed it would be difficult indeed to protect the right of combination by subsequent clauses, and to protect the individual who might belong to an association from punishment, not on account of in- 909 dividual action, or of combination or association, but on account of the act of some other single person, a member of the same association. They might be unable to bring this question of the definition of intimidation again before the Committee on subsequent clauses; in fact, the present clause, without some definition, left the whole matter in a most unsatisfactory position. They could not hope that any clauses dealing merely with the right of association, and leaving individuals open to the punishment of the present clause, would be satisfactory. The Amendment he wished to propose was contained in the following Proviso: —
Provided, That a person leaving his employment, or breaking a contract, or refusing to buy of any other person or persons, shall not he held to be guilty of intimidation for such acts by themselves, unless it can be shown that such leaving of employment, breach of contract, or refusal to buy was not undertaken by such person for his own benefit, but for the purpose of inflicting injury upon some other person.That Proviso included the definition of intimidation given by the Prime Minister this evening—it carried out the construction the right hon. Gentleman had put upon the clause. He should have very much preferred the Government to move their own Proviso. No doubt they would have done it in much better language than that which he had adopted; but he and his Friends had felt that, from their point of view, it was absolutely necessary there should be some Proviso of this kind with regard to these three matters—breach of contract, refusal to buy—they had given up refusal to sell—and leaving employment. These were three things a person was entitled to do under the present Law of Intimidation without incurring any penalty Tinder the Criminal Law. The Prime Minister had stated that, in his opinion, the present Law of Intimidation should be added to and in some way amended to make it penal for persons to do these things where they did them, not for their own benefit, but for the purpose of inflicting injury upon someone else. He (Mr. Parnell) had adopted the right hon. Gentleman's definition in his Amendment; and he should now test the bona fides of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary by asking him whether he would accept it?
§
Amendment proposed,
At the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided, That a person leaving his employment, or breaking a contract, or refusing to buy of any other person or persons, shall not be held to be guilty of intimidation for such acts by themselves, unless it can be shown that such leaving of employment, breach of contract, or refusal to buy was not undertaken by such person for his own benefit, but for the purpose of inflicting injury upon some other person."— (Mr. Farnell.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, this Amendment was really beginning over again the whole of the controversy, which had just occupied them five hours. The Amendment was really nothing more nor less than that they had discussed when the debate commenced this evening, and he had no answer to give to it beyond that which had been given by the Prime Minister—that was to say, that as far as it was a legitimate Amendment, it was contained in the words to the effect that an act should be an offence if it was done in order to produce injury by ruining some other person in his business. If the Amendment meant that, it was already in the Bill; and if it meant anything more than that, it was something the Government could not accept. Apart from that, he was not willing to put into the Bill anything, directly or indirectly, to render breach of contract criminal. It was a civil offence, and could be punished by civil process. What was the use of declaring that a breach of contract under ordinary circumstances should not be intimidation? Of course, a breach of contract was not intimidation. There was really no ground whatever for saying that this was to test the bona fides of the Government. He was at a loss to imagine how there could be a more distinct bona fides than to state exactly what they meant—to state what they meant in such a manner as to bring it home to the mind of every reasonable man.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was very sorry the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made up his mind to obstruct the progress of this Bill as much as he possibly could. He had kept them for the past five hours discussing a point which was conceded by the Prime Minister, because he was not willing to put into the Act words to carry out the 911 interpretation of the Prime Minister and his own interpretation of this new law. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said he did not wish to include breach of contract in the Bill, that being a civil offence which could be proceeded against by civil process. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman knew as well as he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) did that the clause in its present form, going before such a tribunal as it would go before, would have the effect of causing breaches of contract to be proceeded against criminally and criminally punished. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knew that as well as anyone, and it was no use his affecting innocence on the point. This clause, as it stood, going before the tribunal before which it would go and under the circumstances by which it was accompanied, would plainly mean that breach of contract by a farmer or labourer against the now dominant and vindictive landlord class in Ireland would be construed into a criminal offence by that tribunal and criminally punished. Everyone acquainted with the circumstances of Ireland knew that, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman knew it too. If he did not know it, it was because his ignorance with regard to the state of feeling amongst the different classes of Ireland incapacitated him from taking anything like a rational view of anything in connection with this Bill. Did any reasonable man mean to tell him (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) that, as the clause stood, combination as to reduction of rent would not be construed by the tribunal to whom this clause would be sent for adjudication into a criminal offence, for which six months' imprisonment would be given? The right hon. and learned Gentleman had appealed to the common sense of the Committee, and had appealed to common experience, to say whether a civil offence like breach of contract was likely to be treated as a criminal offence. But had not people been guilty of a criminal offence in breaches of contract in the view of the the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W.E. Forster)? Would anyone deny that, under the Coercion Act of last year, farmers had not been sent to prison for no greater offence than combination against the payment of unjust rents? If they were to be taught by experience, he would say their expe- 912 rience of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford was that he so used, or misused, or abused the exceptional powers placed in his hands for the repression of crime as to criminally punish what were only breaches of civil contract; and as that was their experience of the action of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland—an official who came before them in the House, and could be called upon to explain his conduct—were they to expect anything less from a tribunal of magistrates, which did not come before them in the House and could not be interrogated? Why did not the right hon. and learned Gentleman put something in the Bill protecting these breaches of contract from criminal prosecution, as in England they were protected by Statute? The right hon. and learned Gentleman was endeavouring to filch away from the Irish people those privileges which a plain interpretation of the words of the Prime Minister entitled them to expect; and he had the coolness, after having pressed this—as every other—clause of the Bill on them, to turn round and accuse the Irish Members of impeding the progress of the measure. It was very well known what the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attitude as to the whole Bill was. It was a matter of common notoriety—it was well known to every Member of the Committee—that it was a matter of boast with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he was carrying the Bill through without making any real concession to the wishes of the Irish Party. He wished to make the Bill so wide that the discretion of the Government in Ireland would be large and autocratic enough to put down any movement that would displease the Executive for the time being. Under the Bill, every movement, legitimate or illegitimate, Constitutional or unconstitutional, was at the mercy of the Executive, and that was what suited the Igna-tieff-like disposition of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
§ MR. DILLONsaid, the difficulty they were in was this, that if the clause went through in its present shape, no saving clause would be able to save individuals from its consequences. The assurances of the Government had been extremely vague, and once this clause passed without a Proviso such as that proposed, nothing that could be subsequently done 913 would be effectual to protect the individual. The clause, as had been pointed out by the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself, dealt not with associations and combinations, but the acts of individuals, so that a saving clause to protect the rights of associations would in no way save the rights of individuals. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary himself, in answer to a question this evening, had said that if a labourer left his employment, or a farmer refused to pay his rent with the forbidden intent, he was guilty of an offence under the Bill. Now, what was the forbidden intent? It was to cause any person to do any act which such person had a legal right to abstain from doing, or to abstain from doing any act which he had a legal right to do. Did not this bring under the clause the case of a farmer who refused to pay his rent in order to get his landlord to lower it? The thing appeared to him to be as clear as daylight; he did not care what saving words were introduced. And if that were the case with the farmer who appeared to pay his rent, what would be said of the farmer who refused to pay his rent with the idea of getting his neighbour's rent lowered? — for the Courts would hold in some cases that the farmers acted in this way. A number of farmers might agree to refuse to pay their rents until they obtained a reduction; then the Court would hold in the case of any one of them who might be proceeded against, that he was withholding his own rent in order to get his own rent and that of his neighbour lowered. If this man was let off by virtue of the saving clause referring to combinations, he could be immediately captured for acting in his individual capacity. Then they had the definition of the Attorney General (Sir Henry James), who said that if a man wished to obtain an advance of wages and agitated for it, he did not commit an offence; but that the whole question was as to the intent which, in order to bring a person under the provisions of the measure, must have been to intimidate. He (Mr. Dillon), however, contended that intimidation under this Bill was practically synonymous with putting pressure on a man. The Government had so drawn the measure that anything that put pressure on a man to induce him to do a certain thing, was an intimidation. 914 The Prime Minister himself, when pressed on this point, said that in the case of a farmer who refused to pay his rent, or of the labourer who left his employment, the objects they had in view in so acting would be taken into consideration; but, that in the measure, the Government could not define what were and what were not evil purposes. The purposes, as they found them in the open definition of the Bill, would include everything that a man could legally do, or legally abstain from doing. Under the technical wording of the measure, the most innocent combinations might be visited by the magistrates with severe punishment. As had been already pointed out, these magistrates would, in the action they took, be, to a large extent, guided by social reasons. The magistrates of Ireland socially depended entirely on the gentry; therefore, it was evident they would be very much guided, as to what was legitimate and what was criminal, by the opinions of men at whose tables they dined, and whose company was the only company they ever went into. If the Bill passed in its present form, the law of Ireland would be different to that of England— different to that which applied to the Home Secretary's own constituents. A very strange thing had occurred in Derby—the town the right hon. and learned Gentleman represented—only last Sunday. One of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own constituents had sent him (Mr. Dillon) an extract from a sermon preached in a Baptist chapel in Derby on Sunday. In this sermon the minister had said, in regard to the movement amongst shopkeepers for giving half-holidays on Saturdays to their assistants, that there were some employers so selfish that they would not join in the movement; and to such people he would have no hesitation in saying he would withhold his custom from them; they ought to be "Boycotted" and sent to Coventry. The general community, as far as they could, should have nothing to do with them. These words were spoken by one who, no doubt, was a leading supporter of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary in Derby. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman, then, undertake to extend this Coercion Act to his own constituents, who seemed to have an inclination to follow in the 915 path of the Irish people? He (Mr. Dillon) saw in the same newspaper from which the extract he had referred to had been taken, that an elaborate league had been entered into with the shop-assistants of Derby with a view of "Boycotting" and destroying the business of any shopkeeper who refused to give his employes a half-holiday on Saturday. There were notices put up in some of the shop-windows declaring—"We give a half-holiday on Saturdays to all our assistants;" and a canvass was now going on in the town to get the people not to deal with those who would not give the holiday. Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman, therefore, insist upon having this clause extended to Derby, with the object of getting some of his constituents, who were guilty of this open intimidation, sent to prison? If he would be in Order, later on he should move that the provisions of this Bill be extended to Derby.
§ MR. BARRYsaid, he was sorry to see a strong Government like the present Government throwing responsibility from their own shoulders to those of obscure magistrates in Ireland. They were leaving on the Irish magistrates the entire onus as to the interpretation of this clause. The Irish Members had been striving for hours to introduce some words into the clause which would safeguard the right of combination in Ireland, and they were told by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that that right would not be interfered with so long as it did not come within the "forbidden intent" of this clause. Well, what was the "forbidden intent?" According to the language of the clause, it might be any mortal thing. Any possible act on the part of a tenant, or a number of tenants, would come within what the right hon. and learned Gentleman described as the "forbidden intent" of this clause. The forbidden intent of Sub-section a was—
With, a view to cause any person or persons either to do any act which such person or persons has or have a legal right to abstain from doing, or to abstain from doing any act which such person or persons has or have a legal right to do.There was a meeting in Ireland on Saturday last. A number of labourers met with a view of increasing their wages—of initiating an agitation for an 916 increase of wages. Well, the landlord had a perfect legal right to refuse any advance of wages, and if the labourers, acting in concert, refused to work for that man unless he complied with their terms, clearly under this clause, when the Bill became law, they could be sent to prison for six months. The Irish Members had repeatedly asked the Government whether it was their intention to sweep away everything in the shape of combination in Ireland, and they had always been told that it was not meant to interfere with the right of combination so long as the act committed did not come within the forbidden intent. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell them whether the instance he had referred to just now did or did not come within the forbidden intent? Would the act of the labourers who met in Loughrea last Saturday render them liable, under this Bill, to six months' imprisonment? If so, what was the use of the Government contending that liberty of combination was reserved under this measure to the Irish tenants? It was a perfect farce to say so, and any limitation that might be introduced at the end of the Bill would not be of the slightest value so long as the clause passed in its present shape. The Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Darnell) did not, in his opinion, ask the Government for a very large concession. It was—Provided that a person leaving his employment, or breaking a contract, or refusing to buy of any other person or persons, shall not be held to be guilty of intimidation for such acts by themselves, unless it can be shown that such leaving of employment, breach of contract, or refusal to buy was not undertaken by such person for his own benefit, but for the purpose of inflicting injury on some other person.If the intention of the Government was merely and solely to deal with "Boycotting," he submitted that that intention could only be carried out under the Amendment of his hon. Friend; but if the intention was—as he believed it to be—to sweep away every vestige of combination in Ireland, then, of course, they would not accept this Amendment. It would be much better, he thought, and would save a great deal of misconception in the minds of the English Members—there was very little misconception in the minds of the Irish Members on the subject—if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Se- 917 cretary would get up in his place and tell them honestly and frankly that not only was it the intention of the Government to suppress and put down "Boycotting" in Ireland, but to sweep away every vestige of it.
§ MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, he could not support the Amendment. The clause referred to "any word spoken or act done intended to and calculated to put any person in fear," &c. If these words had been borne in mind the Committee would have been spared a great deal of this criticism. In any case he had reason to say this, that Ireland was stained with blood and disgraced by outrages resulting from intimidation, and of all men who should desire to put an end to this state of things, the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) should be the most anxious.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, it seemed to him that the Government wished to waste the time of the Committee. The Government and the Irish Members who had advocated different Amendments to the clause before the Committee might thoroughly agree as to what the object was; but the Irish Members simply wished to have the words expressed on the face of the document. The Government said, "We will at some future time bring forward words which will include the idea;" but that was not enough for the Irish Members, who were of opinion that there was no time like the present. It seemed to him that if the Government really were anxious to facilitate the passage of the Bill they would at once put down on the Paper the words they intended to introduce, because, even if, later on, it was found out that there was something wrong in them, it would be very easy to introduce the necessary Amendment on Report. So far as he was able to form an opinion, he did not consider the excuse of the Government —that they had not the words prepared —worthy of the slightest weight. The matter was one of great importance, inasmuch as the magistrates might interpret the clause as they thought proper. They might say that intimidation was intended, when, in point of fact, evidence of intimidation did not exist. The Committee had a good illustration of what might be construed into intimidation in the matter of the erection of huts for the protection of the people who had been evicted from their holdings. These 918 poor people had camped out on the roadside or had been huddled together in the outhouses of neighbouring farmers, and all they had asked was that they should have an opportunity of putting up huts to protect them—some of them as far distant as three miles from their former holdings. But the magistrates thought it right to say that the erection of these huts was for the purpose of intimidation, though there was not the slightest evidence of any such thing. If, therefore, some such words as those now proposed were not inserted in the Bill, some persons who were perfectly innocent might be convicted and sent to prison for six months without the opportunity of obtaining redress. On the other hand, a great many outrages might occur, and, owing to the wording of the clause, those who committed them might get off scot-free. The effect of this clause would be to punish the innocent and let the guilty go free.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: —Aves 37; Noes 202: Majority 165. —(Div. List, No. 128.)
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he rose for the purpose of opposing the Motion. They were all on those Benches entitled to oppose a clause like this. They had done all they could by honest endeavour to amend it, and had not succeeded. The Government had told them that if they waited long enough they (the Government) would some day distinguish between the acts they intended to include, and those they did not intend to include. The Irish Members had only the vaguest promise; and, as it was difficult to see how the result pointed to could be accomplished, they had nothing whatever to justify them in withdrawing their opposition to the clause. The whole history of the clause was one of disappointment, so far as the Irish Members were concerned. It would not be forgetten how, at an early period of the discussion, when they called attention to the vagueness and danger of the paragraph beginning at line 25, they had received from the Government what seemed to them the generous offer that if they did not like that kind of definition, it could be omitted altogether. 919 He did not blame the Attorney General (Sir Henry James), who had made that promise, for withdrawing it, as he had been compelled to do so; but it certainly had appeared to them as though it had been made in the light of reason and fairness. The clause would cover almost any word which could be spoken, or any act which could be performed—
The expression 'intimidation' includes any word spoken or act done intended to and calculated to put any person in fear of any injury or danger to himself, or to any member of his family, or to any person in his employment, or in fear of any injury to or loss of his property, business, or means of living.It was clear that, under a clause of this kind, a person could be punished without having belonged to an organization, without having said or written anything to put a man in peril. A shrug of the shoulders, asullen look, would be an action" calculated to put any person in fear of any injury or danger. "To bite one's thumb would be sufficient to bring a man before the magistrates. Under the Act of 1875, the two classes—employer and workman—were placed on an absolute equality before the law; and he wished to know whether this clause would place the two opposing classes— landlord and tenant—on an equality before the law? If the tenant joined an association and put pressure on a landowner to induce him to reduce his rents, he could be punished under the Bill. But suppose a farmer joined some association he believed to be legal, and which was perfectly legal, and suppose it became known that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) or the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) was coming down to the neighbourhood to address a meeting, and suppose the landlord or the agent told him that if he belonged to that society, or attended that meeting, he would be evicted from his farm, surely that would be intimidation, putting this farmer in most serious fear of" injury to or loss of his property, business, or means of living. "Would that be called intimidation when practised by a landlord or an agent against a poor man, if that poor man appealed to a stipendiary magistrate, and charged his landlord with intimidation under the terms of this clause? They knew it would not; therefore, the clause was one-sided. The Bill was intended to put down the 920 tenants' agitation, and to give the landlord and his agent a new hold on the people. If the clause had been one which was likely to attain the ends for which it was proposed, with all its clumsiness and with all its defects, one might have been inclined to pass it for the sake of the small amount of good it might effect; but its only result, he felt sure, would be to promote the establishment of secret societies. It would result in the creation of secret organizations which defied the public law, and which could not be reached by stipendiary magistrates or Judges, except through the medium of informers. He, therefore, held the clause to be most objectionable. It was objectionable in what it would do, and what it would fail to do; it was unequal, one-sided, unjust, monstrously harsh and cruel, and yet, as he had said before, clumsy in its very cruelty. He and his Friends had every reason to condemn it, and accordingly he opposed the Motion that it stand part of the Bill.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he had listened to the discussions—or the greater part of the discussions—which had taken place on the various Amendments to this clause, and he had heard the arguments adduced by the Government against those Amendments, and in support of the clause as it stood. But nothing that he had heard from that quarter had enabled him to believe for an instant that in this clause there was any promise of justice, or peace, or good government for Ireland. He saw nothing in it but a means of harassing poor and innocent people, and he did not for a moment believe that it would have the effect of causing the arrest and bringing to justice the perpetrators of serious crimes. He believed that this measure, when it became an Act of Parliament, would bo a snare for the feet of the unwary. Criminals would be able to evade it. What sort of persecution was it that was not possible under this Bill— he had been going to say for any class of people to inflict upon any other class? As had been pointed out to the Committee, labourers who lived by the sweat of their brows would not be free to improve their position, to strike for a rise of wages, because, if they did, the landlords, under the terms of this measure, would be able to bring them to account before the magistrates—who were them- 921 selves landlords, or the brothers and sons of landlords—to bring them to account for saying or doing something calculated to injure the landlords. He wanted to know whether, under this Act, a master would be free to dismiss his servant; whether giving notice to a servant and telling him he would have to quit his employment, would not be saying words and doing acts calculated to interfere with his means of living? He wanted to know whether, under this Bill, it would not be possible, all through society, for any one class to persecute any other class? The sufferers would be the poor people against whom the Act would be worked. A clear definition had been asked for, to render abuse impossible; and, although some assurance had been given by hon. Gentlemen opposite, they had invariably declined to give guarantees in the Act itself that such abuses should not arise. He saw in this Bill the elements of strife and confusion, the suppression of legal and Constitutional action in Ireland, the encouragement of conspiracy, and the development of crime. Irish Members had told the Government before that similar results would follow their legislation of a like kind; and they told the Government the same thing now. Every expression of opinion on the platform and in the Press was about to be suppressed; and if there were in Ireland to-day any small knots of conspirators, in nooks and corners planning conspiracy, they had reason to pass a vote of thanks to the Government for suppressing their rivals in the field of public action, and leaving the field clear for themselves.
§ DR. COMMINSsaid, that, while he entirely went with the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite in the desire to see crime suppressed, he felt this Act would not effect that object, and that this particular provision was more likely to lay the foundations of crime than to stop crime; and he could not avoid recording one final protest against this clause as amended. It might be properly described as a section to give the stipendiary magistrates in Ireland power to imprison any person for anything they thought fit, or anything else, at the direction of the Castle authorities. The first requisite in Criminal Law was that it should be known to the people. Did anybody know what was enacted in this 922 section? He and his hon. Friends had attempted to put in the section itself some guide which would tell those who had to suffer the penalties what the law was, and what they must avoid, and would tell those who had to administer the section where they were to hold their hands, and where to strike. But they had utterly failed to get any clear or distinct definition of what this clause proposed to prevent; and, not only that, but they had heard from the promoters three or four different interpretations of what it meant and what it was intended to do. That given by the Prime Minister differed toto caelo from the interpretation of the Attorney General, and the Attorney General's interpretation differed entirely from that of the Home Secretary. How was anybody to find out what the law was, when the very authors of that law could not tell what it was? At one time they said its object was not to create a new offence, but to give additional powers for punishing all offences. And in the next breath they said it would create a new offence, and make that illegal to-day which was not illegal yesterday. Which way was it? They did not know, and the promoters of the Act did not know. How could the people or the magistrates in Ireland know? The only conclusion to be come to was either that the Ministry themselves did not know their own mind, and did not know what it was they would proscribe, or they did not wish other people to know. The Irish Members had tried to point out the defects in that respect, and there was one other slight defect still to be remedied. The section made intent an element of offence; but the Prime Minister said that unless the only intent with which the act was done was an intention to intimidate, that intent would not come under the Bill. Then the Home Secretary said that was not so; that they did not wish to restrict the act to cases where the intent was a sole intent to commit an offence. Which was it? Nobody knew. The attention of the Committee had been called to the state of things which existed when the Conspiracy Act of 1875 was passed; to the murders and rattening in Sheffield; to the trades unions' outrages in Yorkshire, and Lancashire, and Derbyshire. Some of those atrocities were quite as bad as anything that had occurred during the agrarian 923 war in Ireland; indeed, some of them were more atrocious, for he doubted whether there had been anything in the course of this lamentable state of affairs in Ireland so bad as the outrages of brickmakers in Manchester. Yet, when those outrages had to be put down, and when an Intimidation Clause was passed in that Act, what was there different from the Act now being passed? In the Conspiracy Act 50 words were found sufficient to describe and define intimidation, and there was nothing doubtful or ambiguous about it. The clause in that Act read—
Every person who, with a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing or to do any act which such other person ha3 a legal right to do or abstain from doing, wrongfully and without legal authority uses violence to or intimidates such other person, or his wife or children, or injures his property.There, in 50 words, was a clear, unmistakable provision against intimidation, and one that comprehended and would apply to any act of intimidation, looking at it as a moral offence. It was intended to meet evils as bad as those in Ireland, and 50 words were sufficient. Rattening, explosion of air-guns, murders of watchmen in brickfields, and other offences had disappeared, and these 50 words had been found sufficient to meet the English case. How many words had been thought necessary to meet the Irish case? 250, as ill-constructed in point of grammar, as loose and disjointed in point of composition, and, he should say, as unscientific from a legal point of view as any that ever defaced an Act of Parliament. That was the way the Government provided for the prevention of intimidation in Ireland—by an Act which was capable of extension or expansion according to the will of the magistrate. Under the Conspiracy Act for England, if a man was on the Bench of magistrates who had a trade interest he was obliged to withdraw, and if the accused person was afraid of the partiality of the Bench he could claim the protection of trial by jury, and the limit of punishment was three months. In all these respects that Act differed from the Bill proposed for Ireland; in the latter the punishment was greater, and the Bench would be selected from material which, to say the least, could hardly be expected to be such as the accused person had confi- 924 dence in. There was no protection against the abuse or straining of the law, and the law made was of such a kind as admitted of its being strained to the utmost degree, according to the will, or ignorance, or incapacity, not to say prejudice or party feeling, of the magistrate. This section, with no definite plan or object in it that could be seen, and capable of so much abuse, was one against which Irish Members must protest; and he hoped something would be done towards remedying these defects, and that the discussion which had taken place upon almost every word of the clause had not been without effect. He would call the attention of the Government to the necessity of making some provision against what was apprehended from the section, and of making it effective for its ostensible purpose, the prevention of intimidation. Until that was done, he augured nothing but the worst consequences, and an aggravation of the already strained relations between the two classes in Ire-land. It was likely to increase the hostility between the landlords and tenants, and to drive the tenant class or their sympathizers into courses against which Irish Members were anxious to protect them. He hoped some change would be made to prevent these results; and that when another Coercion Act had to be passed—next year or the year after—the Irish Members might not have to come forward, as they did now, and say they had warned the Government of what would take place, and the Government had taken no heed. Under these circumstances, he must make a final protest.
§ MR. BYRNEsaid, he thought the arguments of the Irish Members could not be borne in mind too fully. The 1st clause of this Bill was so extraordinary that he could see no reason for introducing it—that was to say, no one was to prevent any person doing that which, under Statute Law, he had a right to do; and it seemed to him a waste of time to say that a man should have the privilege of doing what the law already allowed him to do. With regard to intimidation, the arguments in support of the clause were the most extraordinary and the most illogical ho had ever heard, and such as he certainly did not expect to hear from old Legislators, The argument had been heard, 925 over and over again, that "intimidation" ought to be left as it was, and not defined in any way. That was what was said when an attempt was made to define, or draw, or fix some sort of limit to that word—that its simplicity was so much better, and that explanation would spoil it. "Intimidation," according to this clause, was not only inducing people to do what was illegal or wrong, but it was to do anything which put a person in fear of injury, and that was an extension of "intimidation." Anybody might say he was afraid of something said or done; and it appeared to him that any words, or actions, or looks could be brought under the Act. "Intimidation" not only meant intimidation, but something very much more. If the Committee withdrew the other expressions and left "intimidation" pure and simple, then it might be interpreted by the good feeling of those who had to administer it. It would not be so important a matter but for the fact that the tribunals which would administer the Act differed very much in different counties. In Dublin, for instance, for a particular offence a fine of 2s. 6d. and costs might be imposed; but in the very next county, for the same offence, the penalty was 20s. or 40s., or a month's imprisonment. In England the magistrates who administered the law not only administered it pure and simple as law, but went out of the way to administer it fairly; and, although the verdict might go against them, the people felt they had had justice and were satisfied. But, in this matter, it appeared to him that the Government not only wanted to put down "Boycotting," but to stop any movement of any description, and any meeting, for any purpose however lawful, which the tenants or other people might think proper to hold. The Irish people were like other people; and if they saw that, in England, the people had liberty and every facility for expressing their opinions by meetings and by newspapers, they would think they were entitled to the same amount of fair play. Therefore, if liberty of meeting to ventilate grievances was not extended to the people of Ireland, an injustice would be done. It seemed to him that the Government were wrong in principle in attempting to suppress legitimate legislation. The man who went on a public 926 platform for any public purpose was not the man to go behind hedges and shoot people. Ho had no sympathy with people who committed crime, but he had sympathy with a man who stood up in public or in private to defend what he believed to be his rights. If the Government would re-consider this matter, they would be able to meet Irish Members upon it, instead of putting them off with vague and indefinite promises which they knew from past experience would not be carried out. Promises were, perhaps, given in good faith; but then Gentlemen in other sections of the House objected to the promises, and in the result they were not fulfilled. If the promise of the Government was put in black and white, there would be an opportunity of considering and digesting its meaning. In another respect, he thought, the Government ought fairly to consider what they were doing. For some time legislation had been going on; but there was a disposition not to legislate for Ireland any further. But how far had legislation yet settled the condition of Ireland? It appeared to him that the more Parliament tried to settle the Irish Question, the further they got from that result. Instead of giving what Irish Members demanded in January or February, the Government locked up their best men; and in July or August the people of Ireland, having ascertained that they had been badly treated, would demand more than they had previously asked for. This was illustrated by the Bill which was passed in this House, and thrown out in "another place."
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is speaking on the general policy, which is not the question before the Committee.
§ MR. BYRNEsaid, the portion of the Bill to which he most objected was the clause which enlarged "intimidation," and he could not refrain from censuring the Government for adding those words to "intimidation," if their object was to put down crime. Instead of putting down crime, he was afraid this section would, in many cases, punish the innocent; and he hoped the Government would see their way to withdraw this section, or to provide in some other clause what would meet the requirements of the Irish Members.
§ MR. REDMONDsaid, this clause was, perhaps, the most important clause 927 in the Bill, and that, holding the opinions he did as to that clause, he should not be fulfilling his duty if he did not enter a protest against its forming any part of the Bill. The main object of this clause was to bolster up landlordism in Ireland; the object which ran through every word of the clause was to put down combinations by tenants for securing their just rights. None of the Irish Members would protest or work against this clause if they thought it was aimed solely at putting down intimidation; but they opposed it because they believed it would be used, and had been framed to be used, against what they considered legitimate combination by tenants for the achievement of their legitimate rights. A great deal had been heard during these discussions on the subject of "Boycotting." It was no part of his duty to enter into a defence of that practice, although, if he were called upon to give his opinion, he should have no hesitation in saying the circumstances in which Ireland was placed rendered it imperatively the duty of Irish people to make public feeling felt upon individuals who, for selfish ends took occasion to injure the entire community. "Boycotting" in very many cases had resulted in outrage and crime; but he contended that it only resulted in outrage and crime to any considerable extent after the suppression of the Land League. So long as the Land League was in existence, and its local branches were permitted to carry on their work, "Boycotting" did not result in any grave injustice or hardship to individuals. It was simply the expression of the public opinion of the whole community against individuals who were acting in a way to injure the community; and so strong was opinion before the suppression of the Land League in that direction that it was able to carry on its decrees without resorting to crime or to violence. After the suppression of the Land League, and after the ladies of the Land League were imprisoned, and their organization broken up, then, as a natural consequence, the people, left to their own devices, and without the guidance of their Leaders, did in many cases commit outrage and violence in carrying out their ideas. This clause was nominally directed against "Boycotting;" and if Irish Members thought that was the case, although they believed 928 "Boycotting" had been justified in the past, they would not now oppose this clause. But it was because they believed this clause was so wide that it would inevitably strike, not only at "Boycotting," but at combination of all kinds, that they protested against it. He did not believe the clause would be efficacious against every form of "Boycotting," or that by any Act of Parliament it would be possible to put down that form of "Boycotting" which existed in a lesser degree as surely in English society and England generally as in Ireland. If the powers of this Bill were ever brought into play in Ireland to protect an individual from "Boycotting," it would inevitably bring about the ruin of that man. The shortest way to bring about complete "Boycotting," in the worst sense of the word in regard to any man in Ireland, would be by bringing the Act into operation for his protection. He thought the Irish Members had the greatest reason to complain of the attitude which the Government had taken up. On a recent occasion the Attorney General, in dealing with one section of this Bill, had attempted to define "intimidation," and said, in effect, that if that definition was objected to, and Irish Members preferred no definition, the Government would be willing to omit the definition. He did not know how it came about, but the Attorney General afterwards changed his opinion, and the Government changed their mind. That offer, made by a responsible Member of the Government, and accepted by the Leader of the Irish Party, was suddenly withdrawn, and every effort on the part of the Irish Members to amend the Bill in the direction of definition became impossible. The mantle of the right hon. Gentleman for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) seemed to have fallen on the shoulders of the Home Secretary in this discussion. The right hon. Member for Bradford was, during his connection with the Government, its evil genius; and it seemed to him the Home Secretary was to-day the evil genius of the Government, and he believed the Home Secretary was thwarting the good intentions of the Prime Minister. He was inclined to believe that the Prime Minister did not intend to strike at open and legal combination; but he seemed to be thwarted in his desire by the attitude which the Home Secretary had adopted. 929 He was not at all surprised by rumours which he had recently heard as to the attitude the Home Secretary had taken up towards the rest of his Colleagues upon this Bill. It had been said that the Government, represented by the Prime Minister and other Gentlemen in the Cabinet, were willing to make concessions to Irish feeling and to English feeling; but the Home Secretary was the man who objected in every case to concessions, and he said if he was to remain a Member of the Cabinet such concessions must not be made. He should very much like to see things turn out in such a way that the Home Secretary might be able to take his place alongside the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster); and then the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and the right hon. Member for Bradford, and the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) might form the "Three Graces" of the Liberal Party. Nothing had struck him more forcibly with reference to this clause than the manner in which the Radical Members had been treated by the Government. Some of the most important Amendments to this clause came from Radical Members; but they were received with as little consideration by the Government and the Committee as the proposals made by the Irish Members. There was a useful lesson to be drawn from that fact. The Radical Members had adopted an attitude on the second reading of this Bill which was very disheartening to any man who desired to see something like conciliation towards Ireland, and to anyone who desired to convince the Irish people that there was a possibility of obtaining justice from the House of Commons. Men of eminence and respectability in this House made speeches on the second reading of the Bill, and with regard to this very point of intimidation expressed their utter abhorrence of the principle, and denounced the Bill root and branch, and in almost every instance they wound up by saying they would vote for the second reading. What had been the result? The result was that in a division only some dozen English Members supported the Irish protest against the Bill, and the Government, strengthened by that division, had since been able to take up an attitude of firmness, or rather of obstinacy, which they still maintained. If the Radical 930 Members had had the courage of their opinions, and voted against the second reading, this would not have happened.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is going into very general remarks. The Question before the Committee is very simple; it is, "That this Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. REDMONDsaid, he was endeavouring to explain how it had happened that the Government were firm in refusing Amendments to this clause, and he was alluding to Amendments proposed by Radical Members, and he was trying to explain the reasons for the efforts of Radical Members to amend the Bill having proved as useless as those of the Irish Members. He regretted that the Government had not made any concession to Irish feeling in this matter, and that they had thrown away, as he believed they had, a great opportunity of conciliating the Irish people. When the Government came into Office they had a great opportunity of conciliating the Irish people. They came into Office to a great extent on the support they received from the Irish electors; and they were now neglecting one more opportunity of conciliating the Irish people by refusing the demands for concessions. And he regretted that on every occasion throughout the history of Ireland, when the people were willing to be conciliated, the Government abandoned all desire or efforts to conciliate the people; and now, again, the Government had resorted to the rusty, and stupid, and inefficient weapon of coercion. This clause would have but one effect; it would have the effect of making men who desired to carry on agitation within legal limits despair of the possibility of doing so. That would throw the whole power in Ireland into the hands of men who advocated more desperate courses. It would take away from Irish Members the power to lead the Irish people along the road of Constitutional agitation, and make assassination one of the institutions of the land.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: —Ayes 258; Noes 33: Majority 225.—(Div. List, No. 129.)
§ Clause 5 (Riots and other offences.)
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he hoped the discussion on this clause would not 931 be quite so long as on the last clause, and with that view he moved an Amendment which he hoped would be accepted. His Amendment was to this effect—Subsection (a.) provided that any person who took part in any riot or unlawful assembly would be guilty of an offence under the Act. There was no definition of "unlawful assembly" in the Bill, and he was in despair as to what would be an "unlawful assembly," unless it would be what was declared unlawful by a Resident Magistrate. Clause 7 provided—
Surely the illegal meetings in Clause 7 were not the unlawful assemblies dealt with by Clause 5. Otherwise, both clauses would not be necessary. His proposition was to make the clause read—"takes part in any riot" at "an" unlawful assembly, instead of riot "or" unlawful assembly. It was quite possible a person might see an assembly and join in it, and to some extent take part in it, without any evil intention; but such a person would be guilty of an offence under this clause. But if his Amendment was adopted, some sort of overt act would be required to bring that person under the provisions of the Act. If his Amendment was not sufficient, he should be quite ready to add words making it an offence under the Act for any person taking part in an unlawful assembly to refuse to withdraw from that assembly when called upon to do so by a Resident Magistrate, or a Justice of the Peace, or any other person in authority, not a sub-inspector or a policeman. He thought this was a fair and reasonable proposition, and that the clause, as it stood, went a great deal too far, and would tend to bring innocent persons within the penalties of the Act.
- "(1.) The Lord Lieutenant may from time to time, by order in writing to be published in the prescribed manner, prohibit any meeting which he has reason to believe to be dangerous to the public peace or to public safety.
- "(2.) Any person who is present at a meeting prohibited in pursuance of this Act shall be guilty of an offence against this Act."
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 31, leave out the first "or," and insert (' at an."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word "or" stand part of the Clause."
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was of no use to leave the matter of 932 unlawful assemblies to juries, because, as was so well known, the juries would not agree. But when they came to the Summary Jurisdiction Clause the hon. Member would have an opportunity of again referring to this subject. Now, a riot and an illegal assembly were both offences known to the law under the Riot Act; but then, if they were to be left to be dealt with under the Common Law, they would have to be sent for trial to a jury, and everyone knew that punishment in that case would not be inflicted, inasmuch as the jury would not convict; and, therefore, the object of the clause was simply to make them offences under the Act, in order that they might be dealt with by summary jurisdiction. They were not creating new offences; they were making offences now punishable by the law amenable to summary jurisdiction. His hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was mistaken in supposing that the unlawful assembly dealt with in this clause was the same as that illegal assembly which, by Clause 7, the Lord Lieutenant might, from time to time, by order in writing, to be put in a prescribed manner, prohibit, when he had reason to believe it would be dangerous to the public peace or the public safety. The two things were totally distinct; and he repeated that all the clause did was to say that offences now well known to the Common Law, and otherwise tried by jury, would be tried as summary offences under this Act.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORWhat is an unlawful assembly under the Common Law?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was where several persons assembled together to do an unlawful act, such as pulling down fences. According to Blackstone, it was also a disturbance of the peace by persons assembled together with the purpose of doing a thing which, if executed, would create a riot. These offences Her Majesty's Government, by the present clause, were bringing within the scope of summary jurisdiction.
§ MR. HEALYasked if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would have any objection to import Blackstone's definition into the clause? Ho had himself no objection to an unlawful assembly being prohibited; but it was very 933 desirable that they should know what an unlawful assembly was. For his own part, he did not know what an unlawful assembly meant. He was, however, acquainted with things which might have come under this definition in England, such as the acts of Mr. J. De Morgan at Plumstead; disturbances in Epping Forest; the pulling down of Hyde Park railings, and the like. These matters were quite intelligible so far as England was concerned; but he pointed out that "unlawful assembly" in Ireland was up to the present time undefined. He thought the Government had been somewhat indistinct in their utterances on this point. In this clause they legislated against unlawful assemblies; and, having done so, they next, in Clause 7, took powers to prevent illegal meetings. As far as he could see, it was difficult to understand the reason why these double powers were asked for. Now, he did not want these two things mixed up together. Since last October, he reminded the Committee, there had not been a single meeting allowed in Ireland, because anyone who attended them would have been shot down or bayo-netted. If any Gentleman doubted that statement, he would advise him to go to a meeting which the Lord Lieutenant prohibited. As he understood the matter, "unlawful meeting" and "illegal meeting" were convertible terms. In Clause 7, the Government took these powers—
That the Lord Lieutenant may from time to time, by order in writing, to be published in a prescribed manner, prohibit any meeting which he has reason to believe to be dangerous to the public peace or the public safety.And now, in addition to that, they asked that every person who took part in any riot or unlawful assembly should be guilty of an offence against this Act. Ho wished to know if "illegal meeting" was the same as "unlawful assembly;" if not, why was special power taken to prohibit illegal meetings? Why did the Government wish for both powers? Why did they speak with two voices? He thought Irish Members were fairly entitled to some explanation of the difference between these two terms.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, there were two Amendments to this line. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) did not propose to leave out "unlawful assem- 934 bly;" but the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), next upon the Paper, did propose to leave out the words "or unlawful assembly." He would point out that they must first proceed to deal with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, the hon. Member for Northampton proposed to leave out the word "or," and to make the clause read thus—"takes part in any riot at an unlawful assembly." Now, that necessarily imported into the discussion the question as to what an unlawful assembly was; and if there was any intention to discuss the matter intelligently, that question could not be excluded now. He had no objection to the Government taking power to put down riots; on the contrary, he thought that they were things which it was most desirable should be put down. But he wished to know why the Government took power to put down these riots apart from the provisions already existing in this Act? That was a plain question; and he submitted that he was entitled to a satisfactory reply.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, when they arrived at the consideration of Clause 7, he should be able to prove to the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) that the difference between a meeting proclaimed by the Lord Lieutenant, when this Bill passed into law, and an unlawful assembly was as great a difference as there could possibly be between two different cases. An unlawful assembly-was when three or four persons assembled to do an unlawful act, such as the destruction of a warren or the pulling down of buildings. The case he had put before the Committee the other day amounted to this—a number of people having assembled for the purpose of attacking a bailiff; that was a violent gathering for the purpose of riot, and was a kind of unlawful assembly not infrequent in Ireland. The Government desired to reach cases of this kind, and that was the reason why they objected to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). The hon. Member for Northampton objected to any riot being made penal unless it took place at an unlawful assembly, and, in so doing, he proposed to cut out the word "or" from the clause. The effect of this would be that no one at an unlawful assembly could be punished 935 unless a riot took place there. Now, the Government wished, if possible, to punish by magisterial power that common form of unlawful assembly which took place in Ireland.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was really astonished at the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. The right hon. Gentleman said "unlawful assembly" was a perfectly well understood law term; and, in the course of his arguments, he went on to say that an unlawful assembly was an assembly of three or more persons to do an unlawful act, such as the pulling down of enclosures, and because an unlawful assembly was understood to be a meeting of three or more persons to pull down railings, that, therefore, it was an unlawful act to take a bailiff from under his bed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department also gave the Committee a definition as to what constituted an unlawful assembly, and he mentioned two or three things—the assembling of two or three persons together made an unlawful assembly. Then he said that an unlawful assembly, according to Black-stone, was a disturbance of the peace by two or more persons assembled together with the intention of doing an act which, if executed, would create a riot. He asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it was the intention of the Government to put that definition of Blackstone into the clause? It was clear to his mind that if an unlawful assembly was a meeting of persons to pull down enclosures, it was not so to pull a bailiff out of his bed; but the fact was, the term "unlawful assembly" was intended to mean anything or nothing which the Government might wish to bring within the clause.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) would make the passage read thus—"takes part in any riot at an unlawful assembly." Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant contended that if those words were adopted, the Committee might as well cut out the words "unlawful assembly." He (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) was quite unable to see that anything of the kind followed upon the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for 936 Northampton. It appeared to him that the Amendment of the hon. Member distinguished between riots which took place at unlawful assemblies, and riots which took place at assemblies which were not unlawful. It happened in every country that assemblies which were not unlawful, and were not for any unlawful purpose, sometimes ended in riot; and, in such a case as that, he wished to know why an offence of such a venial character should come within the scope of this Bill? Now, the real purpose of the Amendment before the Committee was to make this point clear. He would suppose the case of a temperance meeting, a lecture, or a debating society, or a hundred other peaceful, legal, and Constitutional assemblies. It was quite within the range of possibility that some disturbance should arise at one of those meetings, however peaceful and harmless the intention of the assembly might have been. Now, if a riot arose, under such circumstances as these, it would immediately come within the scope of the Bill, and the participators in that riot would be liable to six months' imprisonment under the Act. He said this was monstrous. But there was a difference between a riot such as he had described, and a riot which took place at an unlawful assembly. In the latter case, the assembly, to begin with, was unlawful, and, that being so, it was not unlikely to give rise to riot; and this supplied a reason why the rioters should be made amenable to the law. But why should persons who might be mixed up in riots arising out of peaceful and harmless meetings be subjected to this severe and extreme penalty of six months' imprisonment with hard labour? He considered the Amendment to be a fair and reasonable one, and he hoped the Committee would see their way to accept it.
§ DR. COMMINSsaid, they had here another attempt on the part of the Government to revive a very old law. He did not believe there had been a case for centuries of a person being prosecuted on account of an unlawful assembly. Blackstone, referring to unlawful assemblies, said that the earliest definition was to be found in an Act passed in the 21st year of King Henry VII; and he added—
That the law was enacted at the time when it was the practice of gentry who were at vari- 937 ance with each other to go to market at the head of a band of armed retainers.That law was, no doubt, a good one when considered with reference to the circumstances of the time. But still he should be very much obliged to any hon. and learned Member, acquainted with the Criminal Law, who would tell him when there was an indictment on account of an unlawful assembly? When it was found necessary to interfere with such assemblies as were thought likely to cause terror, they were suppressed by the reading of the Riot Act, and dispersed under that Act; but the prosecution of an unlawful assembly, pure and simple, was a curiosity in the law, and he would be glad to be referred to a case of the kind. Under this Bill, whenever three or four persons assembled, magistrates of a not very brave disposition would conclude that it met under circumstances which might cause terror; but it was well known that a thing which would inspire terror in the mind of one man would not do so in the mind of another. He admitted that a man might be terrified if a very small meeting were held in his neighbourhood; but surely it was not necessary to resort to a Statute of Henry VII. for the purpose of bringing assemblies of this kind, not before juries, but within the summary jurisdiction of magistrates. Now, he thought the Amendment before the Committee, to a large extent, took away that objection. If the assembly was an unlawful one, and, instead of falling back on the Riot Act, persons taking part in the riot were proceeded against before the magistrate, he should have no objection to urge against that course; but he objected to the revival of this old and forgotten law, unsupported by a single indictment, for the purpose of meeting a case which could be otherwise dealt with, and which was most likely to be abused. He objected to cases of this kind being left to the decision of a frightened magistrate, who might have some reasons for considering unlawful a meeting which another person would not consider to be unlawful at all. Therefore, unless the clause was intended to be applied to the purpose of oppression without any protection for persons brought under the cognizance of the Act who had committed no offence whatever, he thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton should be adopted.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to know whether the word "riot" meant the assembling together of more than four persons?
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it was clear that if the magistrates in Ireland were to be left to interpret this Act, they would be very apt to regard as unlawful every assembly that met for the purpose of advocating or securing any object which was distasteful to themselves. The Act provided that the Lord Lieutenant might, from time to time, by order in writing, to be published in a prescribed manner, prohibit any meeting which he had any reason to believe to be dangerous to the public peace or public safety, and the magistrates would very likely decide that those objects were unlawful which had a direct tendency to affect their interests in land or other property. With regard to the ruling of the Chairman, which had just been given, to the effect that hon. Members were not in Order in discussing the meaning of the words "unlawful assembly," he would ask whether it was possible to discuss the Amendment before the Committee without having any clear idea of the meaning of the word "riot" and the words "unlawful assembly?" But the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton required that the riot should take place at an assembly which was unlawful, and he pointed out that this Amendment, so far from distinguishing, only confused the terms. It was necessary, before the Committee could appreciate properly the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton, that they should understand what was the meaning of both these terms; and he, therefore, submitted they were in Order in discussing what was meant by the words "unlawful assembly."
THE CHAIRMANsaid, his object, when the hon. Member for Wexford was speaking against the words "unlawful assembly," and contending that they should be left out of the Bill, was merely to point out that the next Amendment proposed to set aside those words, and that the present Amendment did not.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he understood, from the remarks of the Chairman, that it was in Order to discuss the meaning of the words "unlawful assembly;" and, therefore, he pro- 939 posed to ask the Government what meaning they attached to them, and what was the definition of them beyond which the magistrates were not to go? For his own part, he should be perfectly satisfied with the clause as it stood at present, if it were exactly stated what it was the magistrates would be bound to consider an unlawful assembly in arriving at their decision. He thought that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton should be supported, because without it the people of Ireland would be practically at the mercy of magistrates, partizans as they knew them to be, who would, no doubt, arrogate to themselves, under this clause, the same powers which were vested by Clause 7 in the Lord Lieutenant.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he could find no definition of the word "riot" in the Definition Clause of the Bill, and, consequently, the word, as it stood unexplained, might mean anything or nothing at all. It was very easy for the Government to put down the word "riot" in the clause without saying what was meant by it; but he contended that the Irish Law Officers of the Crown, who were well acquainted with the meaning of the term, should prepare a definition for insertion in the Definition Clause. He said that the Government should define this offence in the way they had defined other things in the Definition Clause.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, if hon. Members refered to the Law Text Books they would find all the definitions they wished. In this Bill it was not intended to give a new definition of a crime well known at Common Law. If they used the word libel in the Bill, it would surely not be considered necessary to define what libel was. If they were introducing a new offence, they might justly be required to give a definition; but, as a matter of fact, they were dealing with a well-known offence. As the Home Secretary had explained, it was simply a question of transferring the jurisdiction in such cases to the tribunal who were to try them. The matter was in the hands of the Committee, and he did not think he ought to be required to repeat what had already been said.
§ MR. METGEsaid, the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman did not seem to coincide with the arguments the 940 Home Secretary used in refusing to give a definition of the word "intimidation." If it was impossible for the Government to define the words "riot" or "unlawful assembly," it seemed justifiable in the Irish Members to press the Government to give the people of Ireland some instruction in the matter, because they must know that this Act was not to be administered by men trained in the law. For the most part, the exercise of the powers conferred by the Act would be in the hands of the Resident Magistrates, whose law came with their practice. These men obtained their knowledge of the law by the cases which were brought before them, and those cases were mostly those in which their own prejudices were aroused. For these reasons, he considered the people should be distinctly instructed as to what their liability would be under the words of this clause.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, he hoped the Government would furnish a fuller definition of "intimidation," and also of "unlawful assembly." The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General said it was not necessary to give a definition of "riot," because it was an offence well known at Common Law. It would be quite another thing, continued the Attorney General, if a new offence was being created. It must be remembered that, under the head of "riot," men found trespassing in pursuit of game could be brought before the magistrates and sent to gaol for six months with hard labour. Many of the fox-hunting Resident Magistrates would be glad of the power this Bill would confer upon them; but he feared they would make a mistake if they sought to put down poachers by means of this Bill.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ MR. DILLONmoved, in page 3, line 31, to leave out "or unlawful assembly." He had several strong reasons for proposing that "unlawful assembly" should be omitted from the clause. His first reason was that a large number of people would be convicted who had no intention to commit any offence against the law under the words "unlawful assembly." Whatever the Home Secretary might say to the contrary, he (Mr. Dillon) could positively assert that nine out of every ten people in Ireland had not the least idea what an unlawful assembly 941 was. He himself did not know what it meant, although the Home Secretary and the Attorney General said it was a well-known offence tried at Common Law. When cases of unlawfully assembling were tried, it must be recollected that there was always the safeguard of the verdict of a common-sense jury. A jury in convicting or acquitting a person charged with unlawful assembly, would take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, and they would most certainly take into consideration whether the person charged had attended the assembly with an illegal intent. It was now proposed to place this very elastic expression—and it seemed to him that nearly everything in the Common Law was elastic—at the disposal of the magistrates, who would not give the prisoner the benefit of that common sense which a jury would bring to bear on a case; it would be at the sole discretion of the magistrates to decide what was an unlawful assembly. A very remarkable case had just come under his notice, and he would describe it to the Committee in order to show how this clause might work in Ireland. He had received a letter from a constituent of his in Ros-orea, in which letter the writer complained that he and two or three friends were standing smoking outside his door when the police charged up the street and dispersed them. The gentlemen followed the police to the barrack with the intention of charging the police; but the police charged them with riot and with pursuing them down the street. The gentlemen summoned the police for assault, and the police summoned them for riot. When the case came before the magistrates the summonses of his constituents were dismissed, and the summonses of the police were sustained and the defendants sent for trial. Judge Barry, at the last Winter Assizes in the city of Kilkenny, refused to allow the case to go to the jury. These men had been committed by a bench of Irish magistrates for riot and unlawful assembly. The case was dismissed by Judge Barry, because it was brought upon the uncorroborated evidence of the police, his Lordship remarking that in this instance the police were the aggressors. Under this Act these men would have been required to serve out the term of six months' imprisonment, because they would have had no right 942 of appeal over the heads of the magistrates. Under this Act the police would be able to say that any assembly of men was unlawful, and the word of the police would be taken by the magistrates, and that of the accused would be disregarded altogether. He might be wrong, but he understood the definition of an unlawful assembly to be an assembly of people for unlawful purposes. The police might arrest people who were collected together, and swear they were assembled for an unlawful purpose. What evidence could those charged with the offence bring to rebut the accusation but their own word? It was a notorious fact that magistrates always believed the testimony of the police against that of the people, and he held that the expression "unlawful assembly" would put it in the power of the police to arrest anybody at all who was talking to anybody else in a proscribed district, and swear they were assembled for an unlawful purpose. He did not know whether the police might not go so far as a friend told him they once went. They arrested certain individuals, and the charge against them was that they were found congregating about the street corners in a suspicious way. At all events, there was a very strong reason for the omission of this expression. It was no justification for the retention of the words to say that the offence was well known under the Common Law, because it was requisite in the case of offences which were to be tried by magistrates, and without the protection of a jury, that the definition should be more strict and not so elastic as the one contained in the Common Law.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 31, to leave out the words "or unlawful assembly."—(Mr. Dillon.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'unlawful assembly' stand part of the Clause."
§ DR. COMMINSsaid, that the term "unlawful assembly" was very antiquated. The Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Porter) had said it was a very common thing for a charge of "riot and unlawful assembly" to be preferred. Undoubtedly, an indictment for "riot" always contained a count for "unlawful assembly;" but he challenged his hon. and learned Friend to produce a single 943 case of "unlawful assembly" pure and simple.
§ MR. MARUMsaid, that in 1848 Judge Patteson said—
Whether a particular meeting he lawful or unlawful must depend upon the circumstances under which it is held and the manner in which it is brought together. These being questions of fact must he submitted in all cases to the judgment and determination of a jury, first a grand jury and then a petty jury if the bill of indictment he found true.These being the opinions of a learned Judge as to what was necessary in 1848, it certainly was very requisite that now there should be a full definition of unlawful assembly for the instruction of the magistrates who would preside at the Summary Jurisdiction Courts. An ample definition might not be necessary when a jury was empannelled to investigate a case of "riot and unlawful assembly;" but it certainly was absolutely necessary now, because no Judge could lay down the boundaries between a lawful and unlawful assembly.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Marum) made an unreasonable demand on the Committee, for he had said that no Judge could possibly define what was an unlawful assembly, and therefore the Committee should define it. Whether an assembly was lawful or unlawful was a mixed question of law and fact. The Government proposed to leave to the Court of Summary Jurisdiction the decision of this mixed question of law and fact, for the same reason that they had left the decision of questions of fact to the higher tribunal provided by the Bill. An unlawful assembly was a meeting of large numbers of people under circumstances calculated to raise fear amongst Her Majesty's subjects; and no man could decide whether a meeting was unlawful or not unless he was aware of all the circumstances. An unlawful assembly, in point of fact, was an inchoate riot—a meeting which was likely to eventuate in riot—a meeting called together with the intention and object of using force. That was a very simple question, which a magistrate was perfectly competent to decide.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he hoped the Government would now (12.45) agree to report Progress. The question under consideration was very important; and as the House had to meet again at 2 944 o'clock he supposed there would be no objection to reporting Progress.
§ MR. DILLONsaid, he had understood the Prime Minister to say, a few days ago, that he would not take any Morning Sitting on account of the hard work devolving on Irish Members. He was, therefore, surprised when he was told that the right hon. Gentleman had intimated his intention of taking a Morning Sitting to-day. He would move that Progress be reported; because, if they did not report Progress now, he did not know how they could possibly be down at the House again at 2 o'clock.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— {Mr. Billon.)
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was quite true that, at the request of the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite, a Morning Sitting was not taken last Tuesday, but the result was not very encouraging; the Committee made no progress at all. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) had said the altered arrangement was made last Tuesday to suit the convenience of Irish Members. There were other persons to be considered—those who had to conduct the Business of the House. Really, the time had come when they must make progress. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) said on Friday night that they had passed the 4th clause. It was now 1 o'clock on Tuesday morning, and they had not yet passed the first words of the 5th clause. It must be obvious to everyone that the Committee must endeavour to get on with more haste; therefore, he hoped the Committee would not agree to report Progress at this comparatively early hour.
§ MR. BULWERsaid, he sincerely hoped the Government would stand firm. The hon. Member for Tipperary had made an appeal to the Committee on the ground that all the labour was thrown on the Irish Members. Why, to the Irish Members this was a labour of love; and it was they who made the labour. He had been in the House all night, and he had heard little but rubbish spoken; and he would give the Committee an instance. One hon. Member (Dr. Commins) just now, after talking a good quarter of an hour about un- 945 lawful assemblies, finished up by challenging the Law Officers of the Crown to give him an instance in which an indictment had ever been preferred for an unlawful assembly. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Marum), arguing on the same side, instantly produced a case tried by Judge Patteson—[Mr. MARUM: That was a case of riot. "It was an indictment for an unlawful assembly also—and that was the way the time of the Committee was taken up. Hon. Members from Ireland wanted a definition of crimes, in the hope that the definition might fail on some point or other; that a criminal might have the opportunity, as one hon. and learned Gentleman had pointed out, of relying on the argument, expressio unius exclusio alterius. He would remind hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway that there was no universally-accepted definition even of the crime of larceny. He trusted the Government would not give way to hon. Gentlemen who, night after night, were wasting the time of Parliament.
§ MR. H. SAMUELSONsaid, he hoped the Government would either let the Committee report Progress or they would not. He had sat through many of these debates, and he had noticed, on an infinite number of occasions, the waste of hours at a time, owing to the Government strenuously resisting, for a long time, Motions to report Progress, and then, after all, giving way. He trusted the Government would consent to report Progress at once, or really insist effectually upon going on with the Bill.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwished the Government would tell the Committee how far they were to go.
§ MR. DILLONsaid, the Prime Minister told them, at the commencement of the present Sitting, that he had no complaint to make of any unreasonable opposition to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the opposition was prolonged further than he liked; but he could not say that it was unreasonable. He (Mr. Dillon) did not think any unreasonable opposition had occurred that night. They had now arrived at an exceedingly important point, and it was not possible to carry on the discussion of the measure in a proper manner if they were only to get five hours' sleep out of 24. If the Home Secretary would consent to do what the Prime Minister consented to do last week—that was, not 946 to take a Morning Sitting—the Irish Members would be reasonable, and meet him half way, by continuing the consideration of the Bill until a later hour.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, if hon. Members opposite would allow the Committee to take this sub-section, the Government would be willing to report Progress. The question had been thoroughly discussed, and the definition of "unlawful assembly" had been given by every legal Member on the Treasury Bench; and the point was a very narrow one. When they considered the state in which Ireland was at the present moment—a state of which the public knew a great deal, but of which the public certainly did not know all—it was a very serious matter indeed that this extremely important Bill, with a matter of eight clauses now coming on, which would form a complete network to thoroughly strangle the murder and outrage which now prevailed in Ireland, should be resisted at the rate of two hours for every line of the Bill. The Government would be perfectly willing to report Progress when this sub-section was passed.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished he could share the right hon. Gentleman's confidence that the remaining eight clauses of the Bill would be effective for their work. He must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the time of the Committee up to this had not been spent over these eight clauses; but it had been spent over clauses which had no reference to the murder and outrage which now prevailed in Ireland. On the contrary, the clauses which the Committee had as yet discussed at any length were clauses for putting down private and public action—action which was legal in England. Even to the proposal to suspend trial by jury he and his hon. Friends offered no lengthened opposition, and by far the most of the debate on that question was carried on by English and not Irish Members. With regard to what the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Bulwer) said about the Irish Members talking rubbish, he (Mr. Parnell) must say that he had not spoken any rubbish, and he had not heard any of his hon. Friends do so. He had, however, heard some very rubbishy expressions from English Members—Members who did not understand the question, and who would not take the trouble to 947 inform themselves upon the points at issue. He would remind the Committee that an overwhelming majority of the Irish Members were opposing the Bill. In all the divisions there had been a majority of five to one of the Irish Members against the Bill; and in no division had the Government had more than 12 Irish Members supporting them. It came to this —? that, comparatively speaking, the number of Irish Members opposing the Bill was larger than the number of Members of the House of Commons in support of it.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put.
§ The Committee divided: —Ayes 196; Noes 25: Majority 171.—(Div. List, No. 130.)
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— [Mr. Trevelyan.)
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that before that Motion was put he wished to make an appeal to the Government not to take a Morning Sitting to-day. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had very little to do in Committee, but the Irish Members had a great deal. They did not finish until a quarter past 1, and they would have to be here at 2. ["Hear, hear!"] It was all very well to cry "Hear, hear;" but they ought to be "There, there." He would ask the Government not to put an undue strain on Members of the House. The two hours' interval between 7 and 9 were of no value to hon. Members—they only idled them away. Last year they were happy to agree to Morning Sittings, because the Prime Minister was conducting his own Bill, and he required the interval between 7 and 9 for repose. But the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was both young and strong, and he (Mr. Healy) did not see why he should require repose any more than anyone else. He would ask the Government not to impose upon Members, who did not get home until 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, the duty of coming here at 2 in the afternoon.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he could not understand why Irish Members could not be satisfied with 12 hours' sleep. For his part, he only required seven hours; and he reminded the House of the saying of George III.—"Six 948 hours for a man, seven for a woman, and eight for a fool."
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, that, unfortunately, the arrangement could not be altered. A considerable number of Members had gone away under the impression that the House was to meet at 2 o'clock; and, at the same time, he was bound to say that, if only on the score of variety, it would be more convenient to meet at 2. They were likely to have a hard week.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, that the real reason why a large section of the House desired to have the interval between 7 and 9 was in order that they might dine out. Hon. Members who came down to the House at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, and remained there until 1 or 2 in the morning, discussing the questions before the Committee, required more time than such Gentlemen as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell). The hon. Member said he required seven hours' sleep. Probably he did; but it was a well-known fact that six hours were enough for a man, and that seven were what a woman required.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that he would take a division on the question of a Morning Sitting, with the Speaker in the Chair. In reply to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, he would remark that the Irish Members had something else to do besides sleep during the hours they were not in the House. They had to work.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, that a great deal of work had to be done out of the House. For instance, to-day the Law Officers of the Crown and the Home Secretary, and those who were engaged in the conduct of this Bill, had arranged to hold a meeting—which would, undoubtedly, be a meeting of considerable length— to settle the clause or clauses which were to be proposed. If these were not proposed at the Sitting to-day, it would be because the Government were anxious to make the new provisions as perfect as possible.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, that probably the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) would not divide the Committee, when he reminded him of a circumstance which occurred just now. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) had said that if there was to be no Morning Sitting he would be willing to go on with the consideration of the Bill—that the question 949 as to whether Progress was to be reported rested on the question as to whether there was to be a Morning Sitting. As there was to be a Morning Sitting, then Progress would be at once reported.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he would not divide, but would wait until next Thursday, and see what would be done then.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, it was upon no such question at all as that mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson) that the Irish Members had offered to give up their right of moving to report Progress. There had been an understanding that if a certain Amendment was withdrawn Progress would be reported when the sub-section under discussion was disposed of.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.