§ Further Proceeding on Third Reading [4th May] resumed.
§ Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he had no objection to the principle of this Bill so far as it went to affirm the perfect freedom of all parties to combine for purposes authorised by the existing law; but it was quite clear that that law should not be construed to authorise illegal combinations. His objection to the Bill as it stood, was this. It appeared to him that it would legalise that system of quiet and peaceful intimidation by which poor men, who were in great distress, and were willing to work at the smallest wages by which they could maintain themselves and their families, were sometimes prevented from so working, in order to be driven into combinations with other persons which they did not wish to join. There might be a man standing by the door of a factory, watching every man who went in and out, taking down his name, and giving him to understand that he was a marked man. The poor man who might be the subject of such observation knew he was thereby incurring certain consequences which he preferred to avoid by relinquishing the work on which he and his family altogether depended for subsistence. It appeared to him that such a system would be sanctioned under the words "peaceable intimidation, or inducing other persons to abstain from working." What he should therefore propose was, that this Bill should be now read a third time, and the consideration of any amendments, that could only be proposed after the third reading, be postponed for a fortnight, in order to allow time to consult with the law officers of the Crown with reference to framing a clause to meet the objection.
§ MR. DRUMMONDsaid, he quite agreed in thinking that the objections to which the Bill was liable ought to be removed, and that a fortnight ought to be given with that view.
§ Bill read 3°