§ Lords' Amendments considered.
§ Amendments, as far as Clause 6, page 8, agreed to.
§
Clause 8, page 3, line 23, leave out from ("doing") to the end of the Clause, and insert—
(" wrongfully and without legal authority,—
Attending at or near the house or place where a person resides, or works, or carries on business, or happens to be, or the approach to such house or place, in order merely to obtain or communicate information, and not with a view to intimidate or to deter by serious annoyance such person from doing or abstaining from doing that which he has a legal right to do or abstain from doing, shall not be deemed a watching or besetting within the meaning of this section);"—
The next Amendment read a second time.
§ MR. HOPWOODsaid, that Clause 5 left the House with the words "of service or of hiring," and it had been returned by the Lords with "or" changed into "and." For that change there was no trace of any Amendment having been moved in the other House, and that being so, he believed that, according to the practice of the House, they were entitled to adhere to the clause in the form in which it left that House.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSexplained that the words had been altered by the officers in the other House from no political motive, but under the idea that the alteration was necessary for the intention and sense of the clause. The Amendment had not been communicated, 710 however, and he should wish to have the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair upon the facts before the House.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, that no Amendment having been communicated to this House by the House of Lords, this House could not take notice of what had not been communicated to it.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEobserved that it was clear that the gravest inconvenience might arise from an alteration being made in a Bill under such circumstances, and at the very close of the Session.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSpointed out that on former occasions, when a similar thing had occurred, the mistake had been once rectified by the officers of the other House, and the same course would, no doubt, be again followed in this instance.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, he believed that the alteration in the printed Bill had been accidental, and this House could only deal with the Bill as it came from the House of Lords.
§ MR. LOWEwho had given Notice of his intention to move the omission of the clause, and the substitution of a new clause in lieu thereof, said, that a clause which had been much discussed in the House had come back in a new shape, but anxious as he had been that it should not apply invidiously to any portion of Her Majesty's subjects, he thought it extremely doubtful whether the clause, as it originally stood, was not better than the one sent down from the Lords. He was surprised at this, because it had been announced, with some flourish of trumpets, that it was fortunate we had a House of Lords, which took a calm view of these things. He thought it was a matter of great rashness at that late period of the Session to have introduced two new offences into the Bill, and there could be no doubt but the change which had boon made, if it remained unaltered, would give rise to an enormous amount of litigation, and to long and envenomed contests between masters and men. For instance, it was now stipulated that a person influencing another must, before becoming liable, do so "wrongfully." The extraordinary result of that was, that a man might use violence or intimidate a person, but he would not be guilty of an offence unless he could be proved to have 711 acted wrongfully. For his own part, he should have supposed that the fact of a man using violence with this intent was proof of a wrongful act. It was difficult what would be an offence under these words. He did not intend to move an Amendment on the point, but wished to note it as an instance of how they might "darken counsel by words without understanding." Again, whereas by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which no one held to be too lenient, no intimidation or threats were criminal unless they would justify a justice of the peace in binding over the person to keep the peace, now, as the clause was drawn, any kind of intimidation was made a substantive offence. That showed what new and difficult questions had been opened up without the slightest necessity. He should presently move to omit the words "or intimidates," in order to take the opinion of the House on the matter. Another provision was, to the effect that attending at or near a house or place of business merely to obtain or communicate information, and not with a view to intimidate, should not be deemed to be watching or besetting within the meaning of the Act. That created a new offence by implication, for it followed that a person "attending" to intimidate was guilty of an offence; but if that was meant, "attending" should have been included in the catalogue of offences, and not left to be inferred from the statement that the converse should not be an offence. Nothing could be more dangerous or unfair than the use of ambiguous expressions of this kind, especially in a measure which ought to be easy of interpretation, being, as it was, a law between the rich and the poor. The springing of an offence of this kind suddenly upon the country seemed to be one of the most imprudent pieces of legislation he had ever seen, and he was astonished that such a mistake should have been made.
§ MR. SPEAKERpointed out that it would be convenient to consider the Amendments in the order in which they stood.
§ MR. LOWEsaid, he would at all events read to the House a clause which, if he had the power to pass it, he would insert in the Bill—" Every person who, with a view to compel another person"—
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it would be inconvenient to discuss such a new clause. What they were dealing with at present was the word "intimidates."
§ MR. LOWEsaid, the natural effect of the view he took would be to endeavour to amend the clause as it stood, so far as they could, and in the end to substitute another clause for it, if it did not prove satisfactory. He now moved the omission of the words "or intimidates."
§ Amendment proposed to the said Amendment, in line 2, to leave out the words "or intimidates."—(Mr. Lowe.)
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the clause in its present form was really less strong that it had been before. In its original form the words were "who threatens or intimidates;" but there was a question raised as to whether a threat was sufficient to bind a man over for, and therefore the word "threatens" was omitted. Intimidation, however, was another matter altogether, and the clause in its present form, instead of its being stronger than it was, was weaker. [Mr. LOWE: No, no!] In his view it was weaker. It now provided that not only must there be some action on the part of the offender, but it must have a certain effect on the person whom it sought to intimidate.
§ MR. MUNDELLAsaid, whatever might have been the intention of the noble Lord who made the Amendment in the House of Lords, the effect would be to leave intimidation wholly without qualification or definition. As the Bill stood before, the intimidation was to be such intimidation as would justify a justice of the peace in binding over a person; but as it now stood, the word "intimidates" was left entirely without qualification, so that the justice would have to decide as to what it might be. No doubt, the intention was to follow the Charge of the right hon. and learned Recorder, but that right hon. and learned Gentleman really defined what he meant by intimidation, using the words, "such an exhibition of force as is calculated to produce fear in the minds of ordinary men."
MR. ASSHETON CROSSpointed out that they were now on quite a different part of the clause—namely, the word "intimidates" alone.
§ MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he simply wished to show how the word "intimidates" ran through the whole clause, and governed the end as well as the middle. The word used alone was liable to the grossest abuse. The words were—" Uses violence to or intimidates such other person, or his wife or children, or injures property, or." A new enactment to protect against violence or injury to property was not required. There ought to be some definition of the word in the sense laid down by the right hon. and learned Recorder, and then they would know what was meant. Unless some definition or limitation was introduced, the effect would be that they would have a recurrence of all the trouble they had already had. The law ought not to be left in so vague a state as it was left in by the Bill in its present form.
§ MR. HOPWOODsaid, that in the old Act the word used was "coerce." It was now proposed to substitute the word "compel." Of the two, he preferred the first as the more accurate definition of what it was intended to prevent or punish. The word "compel" was too vague and indefinite a phrase to use in the case of a criminal proceeding.
§ SIR HENRY JAMEScalled upon the Government to give some answer to the arguments which had been used. They ought to make it clearly understood what had been done, not by the Home Secretary or the Government, but by those who had considered this matter in the House of Lords. If the clause stood as it was, workmen would be placed in an infinitely worse position than they were in at present, and the House of Commons would be giving up the fruits of their labours, not to dispassionate and calm consideration on the part of the House of Lords, but to what he must characterize as hasty legislation. Under the Act of 1871 a person, in order to be convicted under this part of the clause, had to threaten or intimidate another person in such a manner as would justify a justice of the peace in binding him over, and that must be done with a view to coerce. If they had a severe law, they inflicted that severe law only upon a guilty person; but under a vague law the penalty might be inflicted upon an innocent person. The right hon. Gentleman now stepped in with words which lessened the penalty, and thought it necessary 714 to get rid of the word "coerce." To find a person guilty of threatening required some act to be proved. It was a definite crime. But by striking out the word "threatens" and leaving only the word "intimidates" the result was that no overt act, nor anything done, would be required to ensure a conviction—a mere look, a mere walking up and down, merely "making a face" at a workman's child would be all sufficient, if the child was intimidated thereby, for the clause said, "who intimidates such other person, or his wife, or children." He appealed to Her Majesty's Government not to change their policy, but to adhere to it—to adhere to what the House had accepted.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he was very much astonished to find so many words uttered on so narrow and simple a question. The word "intimidates "did not mean something passive, but implied some action on the part of the person intimidating, with a view to prevent a man from doing that which he had a right to do, and which he could otherwise do. If a child or a wife or the man himself were unreasonably frightened, the Judge who tried the case would ask—" What was it that frightened you?" There must be an action on the part of the intimidator to cause fear; it was not merely the use of words which constituted the offence.
§ Question put, "That the words 'or intimidates' stand part of the said Amendment."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 40: Majority 12.
§ MR. EDWARD JENKINSmoved to add after the word "intimidates" the following words, "by threats of personal violence or injury." He considered in a matter of this kind that some clear definition should be given to the meaning of the word "intimidates," and he thought the best way to accomplish this was by adopting the Amendment he proposed.
§ Amendment proposed, after the word "intimidates," to insert the words "by threats of personal violence or injury."—(Mr. Edward Jenkins.)
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the act committed would always be sufficient to indicate whether there had been 715 intimidation within the meaning of the section, and he could not assent to the Amendment. It was possible to make a man do something against his will without using violence.
§ MR. HOPWOODhoped the Amendment would be adopted, and said he thought some clear definition ought to be given to the word "intimidates." The interpretation of the right hon. Gentleman would extend the range of the Bill to the whole community.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, hon. Members seemed to forget that the clause was qualified by the words "wrongly and without legal authority."
§ Question put, "That those words be inserted in the said Amendment."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 53: Majority 11.
§
On the Motion of Mr. Lowe, Amendment made by leaving out the words—
and not with a view to intimidate or to deter by serious annoyance such person from doing or abstaining from doing that which he has a legal right to do or abstain from doing.
§ MR. MUNDELLAthen moved the insertion of the words "or peaceably to persuade," the object being that persons who might attempt to persuade a man to leave his employ should not come under the penalty for watching and besetting which was provided for under the section.
§ Amendment proposed, in line 21 of the said Amendment, after the word "information," to insert the words "or peaceably to persuade."—(Mr. Mundella.)
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, it was clear peacefully persuading was not illegal, and there could therefore be no object in inserting the words in the Bill.
§ SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, the Lord Chancellor had stated that his new clause had been drawn strictly in accordance with the Charge of the right hon. and learned Recorder for the City of London. In that Charge peaceable persuasion was not held to be an offence, but heretofore it had been held by many Judges to be an offence, and, as such, had been punished within the limits of the old statute by the magistrates. If the words were not inserted, they would be able to do as they had hitherto done, contrary to the intention of the Legislature, 716 and the old complaint and disaffection would be left where they were. He hoped the House would not leave an old grievance unredressed.
§ MR. HOPWOODsaid, if the question was so self-evident as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War said it was, there could be no objection to the insertion of the words.
§ Question put, "That those words be inserted in the said Amendment."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 53: Majority 12.
§ MR. LOWEsaid, that as the Opposition intended to divide against the clause as it stood, he wished to read the Amendment which, if they were fortunate enough to overthrow the clause of the Government, they intended to propose in its place. It was to leave out Clause 9, and insert the following clause:—
Every person who with a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing anything which he has a legal right to do, or to do anything from which he has a legal right to abstain—1, persistently follows such other person about from place to place; 2, hides any tools, clothes, or other property owned or used by such other person, or deprives him of or hinders him in the use thereof; or 3, follows such other person with one or more persons in a disorderly manner in or through any street or road; or 4, besets or watches the house or other place where such other person resides or works or carries on business or happens to be, with a view to compulsion as aforesaid, and not merely to obtain or "communicate information, shall be liable on conviction thereof by a court of summary jurisdiction, or on indictment, to a fine not exceeding-twenty pounds, or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the great boon which the working classes had got was not contained in the clause, but was to be found in the Bill itself. This clause was simply intended to put into fresh language the words of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. He should never shrink from the provisions laid down in that Act, nor from the words he had expressed upon the subject. The law he wanted to have in force was that laid down in the Charge of the right hon. and learned Recorder of London; and that law, so far as he could determine it, should be enforced. The right hon. Gentleman had tried his hand once before, and had endeavoured to strike out the words "serious annoyance" altogether. The right hon. Gentleman now tried his hand again, and 717 having just voted for retaining the words "peaceable persuasion," he had now the boldness and hardihood to ask the House to vote for a clause specially leaving out the words "peaceable persuasion," which two minutes ago he voted to insert. He could not have a stronger justification than that given by the right hon. Gentleman himself for resisting the proposed clause.
§ MR. MUNDELLAwould remind the Home Secretary that if the words "peaceable persuasion "were not to be found in the proposed clause, the word "intimidates" was also not in it. He believed that if the Home Secretary had been left to his own counsel, he would have consented to the insertion of such reasonable words as "peaceable persuasion." The right hon. Gentleman, he must admit, had conducted the Bill in a most equitable and conciliatory manner, and he regretted that he had at the last moment refused to insert the words "peaceable persuasion." As he had said, the clause was free from the word "intimidates," and on that ground he supported it. He did trust the House would have the courage to deal equitably in this matter, and to show liberal feeling towards the working man. The Government had dealt with these things in a manner, which, if they had been in Opposition, they would have regarded as revolutionary if introduced by the Liberal party.
§ MR. MELLORthought he might claim to know something of the working classes as well as the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), and he could assure the House that the working men were exceedingly desirous to be protected from the tyranny of those-whose combination would coerce them into compliance. The words proposed to be inserted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lowe) were perfectly useless, because the magistrates on every bench in the Kingdom would require no such Amendments in order to guide their decisions. He should, therefore, oppose the clause.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 41: Majority 14.
§ Subsequent Amendments agreed to, with an Amendment.