HC Deb 12 July 1875 vol 225 cc1341-61

Order for Committee read.

MR. LOWE

, who had given Notice to move— That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to amend the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1871, said, he was informed that it would not he in Order to move that Instruction, because the Committee had already power to amend the Act in question. He should therefore only now state that he proposed in Clause 4 the omission of the words—"where a workman is employed," &c., and the substitution of—" where a person is legally bound, and is able to perform any duty," &c.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive, agreed to, with verbal Amendments.

Clause 4 (Breach of contract by workmen employed in supply of Gas or Water).

MR. LOWE

said, the Amendment which he was about to move to the clause was proposed in no adverse sense to the spirit of the Bill. He wished, in fact, to adopt all the Home Secretary proposed, only to extend the principle further. He thought it a very sound and good principle of legislation that those who made laws should be subject to them wherever that was possible, because people would legislate more carefully and equitably if they considered that they were making laws for themselves as well as for others, and because, also, by making their laws wide and general they were more likely to make good and sound laws than if they limited themselves to small sections of the community where petty prejudices and animosities might easily mislead. Therefore, he held that nobody would dispute that it was a sound principle that when they were making a penal law, as in the present case, they should make that law as wide as possible, and avoid picking out a particular class and subjecting them to penalties from which the rest of the community were free. He thought that was more especially the case when it fell upon the humbler classes of the community. Everybody must feel that it was extremely desirable that there should be one law for both the rich and the poor, and that there should be no ground given for the accusation or the suspicion that they were passing laws for their poorer fellow-countrymen to which they themselves would not be willing to submit. All, then, which he asked the Home Secretary to do was to apply this general principle in two cases. One was the section under consideration, which punished workmen for the abandonment or breach of a contract, whereby the supply of gas or water by a municipality might be interfered with; and the other was where a workman by breach of his contract of service would expose valuable property, real or personal, to destruction. He was perfectly willing to adopt those principles, but there was a third that ought to be added, and that was where human life was placed in danger. But what he wanted was that it should not be limited to breach of contract or to working people, but that wherever it was a man's duty, by contract or otherwise, to do a particular thing, and by abandoning that duty without reasonable excuse, he did any of the three things specified, he should be punished. He could imagine a contractor entering into a contract to do certain repairs, and wilfully and negligently forbearing from putting his men on to work upon which he was engaged, thus causing some serious catastrophe. He did not know why, because he was a contractor, he was to be exempted from the punishment to which in such a case a workman would render himself liable. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would see the justice of the case as clearly as it appeared to him, and that he would not be blind or deaf to the consideration that it was very important to teach the working men to consider that they were not a class apart from the rest of the country—that what we did for or against them we were willing to do for or against ourselves if we fell into a similar fault. He wished to establish that principle, and to give it a larger application in the case of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, giving the working classes thoroughly to understand that they should be treated with the most perfect equality and justice. He moved to omit the clause—" where a workmen is employed by a municipal authority or other public body," &c., and to insert— Where a person is legally bound and is able to perform any duty the immediate and probable consequences of the neglect of which would be to deprive the community of a supply of gas or water, or shall expose property of the value of £100, or endanger human life, such person, if he abandons that duty without reasonable excuse, shall on conviction," &c.

THE CHAIRMAN

observed that the Committee could only discuss the new clause after the clause in its present shape had been disposed of. It was perfectly competent to the Committee to strike out the 4th clause and substitute that of the right hon. Gentleman; but the present clause must first be disposed of.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 5, to leave out "workman," and insert "person."—(Mr. Lowe.)

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he quite admitted the general principle the right hon. Gentleman had laid down, that it was always wise, if you could, to have a general, instead of a particular, law; but persons who were brought under a particular law must not fancy they were singled out because of something objectionable in them or their calling. The simple explanation was, that the relation to the public they had undertaken required special legislation, which did not, as a rule, affect others who were not so employed, and there were numerous instances of persons occupying such relations who had never felt or suggested that special legislation was a grievance. There were many laws, criminal as well as civil, relating to bankers, brokers, merchants, factors, carriers, bailees, trustees, the Army, the Navy, railway servants, and others whose special relations required to be specially dealt with, and by dealing specially with them, you could often deal much more fairly by the general public. It often happened that persons belonging to these special classes, if they committed certain offences, required to be punished either with more or less severity on account of the position they occupied, which might impose upon them greater responsibilities; and if we were to generalize the law and say that all persons should be subjected to equal punishment for like offences we might inflict hardships much more grievous than any we removed. An illustration of this was furnished by the offence of embezzlement committed by a servant in whom special trust was reposed. The moving of this Amendment had a tendency to complicate the discussion of this particular question, and he was obliged to refer to the next section in order fully to discuss it. By that clause, which provided for a breach of contract involving injury to property, there was a distinct relation between the employer and the employed. The workman was specially trusted with a certain special employment, and he knew that if he broke it special danger would be the consequence, and in the clause then under consideration the special danger would be to the public at large. The right hon. Gentleman asked why the clause was not made applicable to all contracts. The tendency of modern legislation had been to withdraw these contracts as much as possible from the grasp of the criminal law; but the right hon. Gentleman proposed by this Amendment to take a most retrograde step in legislation, and make everyone who entered into a contract and wilfully broke it amenable to the criminal law, and not confine it to contracts of service, and the result would be that attempts would be made, with the aid of the criminal law—if so amended—to enforce contracts that ought only to be so by the civil law. At present they frequently saw persons indicted who ought not to be for embezzlement, which were only attempts to enforce the criminal law. To adopt that principle in all contracts would be a most retrograde step. He entirely objected to that principle. There were numberless precedents for this kind of legislation. Take, for instance, the Army, and the Navy, and the Police, where there was special legislation by the Mutiny Act to prevent danger to the state. Persons employed on railways were also governed by special acts, and suffered punishment if they did anything that practically tended to public danger. This clause was drawn precisely on that analogy. No one particular class was singled out, and upon that ground, whilst appreciating the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's wish, it would be most dangerous to extend the criminal law as he proposed, and therefore he must oppose the Amendment.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the only question before the Committee was whether the clause should be applied to everybody or only to workmen. It was said that it was desirable in the public interest that persons who had duties to perform in connection with gas and water works, and who wilfully and maliciously broke their contracts, should be liable to certain penalties; but why not say that all persons whose duty it was to supply gas and water should be punished in a similar manner, instead of speaking only of workmen? Suppose the coal merchant or the coal owner broke his contract and did not deliver coal, and the consequence was a town was not supplied with gas, why was the workman who did his work to go to prison and the coalowner not? That was a clear question, one upon which the working classes would form an opinion. They would say—"Gentlemen sitting in the House of Commons, many of them coal owners, have passed a law which touches us and does not touch themselves; a coalowner may break his contract because coal rises in price, without going to prison; and, at the same time, a working man, who breaks his contract, may be sent to prison." If "person" instead of "workman" were inserted in this clause, it might be preserved in its present form, and, by omitting contracts of service, it might be made applicable to every class of the community. Suppose, instead of being a "workman," it was the overseer who was guilty of a breach of duty. [Several hon. MEMBERS: He is treated as a workman.] If that were so, if workmen covered everybody engaged on the work, what objection could there be to substituting "person" for "workman?" Either the word "person" was not objectionable or else the word "workman" excluded somebody whom "person" would include.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, with regard to a wilful and malicious breaking of contract, that the rule was made because the workman was the person who committed the injury stated. The coalowner could not do it, or if he did it he must come within the meaning of the words "wilfully and maliciously break his contract." The offence could be easily proved in the case of the workman, who, entering into conspiracy with his fellow-workmen at a certain time and on a certain day, left a town in darkness; but not so in the ease of a coalowner who failed to supply a certain quantity of coals. By making the law too broad they missed their men. In the endeavour to include everybody they missed all.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman to insert the word "person" instead of "workman," and which was the only Amendment formally under the consideration of the Committee, was not so objectionable as were the suggested further Amendments referred to by him in proposing it. The object of the clause was to remedy a specific evil; a case of probable or possible misconduct in relation to a particular species of employment, that connected with the supply of gas and water, and in respect of which the breach of duty might lead to the most lamentable consequences.

MR. DODSON

observed that the Amendment reduced itself to this—where any person engaged in work, and under an obligation to contribute his share towards the supply of the town with gas or water, broke that obligation, he incurred a different punishment, according to his station in the manufactory in which he was engaged, whether he was an overseer or a workman. Now it appeared that the principle adopted by the Government was an equal treatment of all persons, whether employers or employed.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that the three speeches they had heard from the front Opposition bench advocated the Amendment on different grounds. The case as put by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) was very intelligible, but quite different from that put by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson). There could be no possible objection to substitute the word "person" for "workman" if the clause were not to be extended beyond those who were bound by some contract. He therefore assented to the Amendment, on the understanding that he was not to be led into the snare provided by the right hon. Gentleman in the rest of his Amendment.

After a few words from Sir HENRY JAMES,

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, it was unfortunate that, in consequence of the course taken by the right hon. Gentle- man, the Government were now called I upon to argue this question on a clause which was not upon the Paper. The overseers and others in the employment of the company ought to be just as much bound by their contract as the workmen.

MR. ROEBUCK

reminded the Committee that after all there was no difference between the meaning of the two words. The persons employed must be working men, whether they were called on to supply either gas or water.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

was glad the right hon. Gentleman accepted the Amendment, because he could not see why the workmen should be placed in a different position from contractors or others engaging labour. He hoped that the Home Secretary would so far alter the clause as to make it applicable to all persons who broke a contract for supplying a town with gas or water.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. LOWE

said, that the words "employed by a municipal authority" had no meaning. Why was it worse to break a contract where a municipal authority or public company were concerned than in other cases where there might be no Act of Parliament? If those who undertook the duty violated it, what did it signify what particular form of municipal government or organization existed? He accordingly moved, in page 2, line 6, to leave out the words "employed by a municipal authority," and insert "on whom is imposed the duty."

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 5, to leave out the words "employed by a municipal authority."—(Mr. Lowe.)

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

objected to the Amendment, believing its effect would be to neutralize the purpose of the Bill. The object in view would be secured by the adoption of the Amendment of his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Tennant)—namely, the insertion of the words, "or who under any charter, incorporation, or otherwise, have assumed the obligation" of supplying gas or water. That Amendment he was prepared to accept.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

pointed out that, under this clause, punishment could not be enforced for failure of gas or water supply, in the case of towns like Oxford, where such supply was given neither under a municipal authority or under an Act of Parliament; and he inquired why all persons ought not to be included who caused public inconvenience in matters of this kind.

MR. DODSON

did not think that the words of the hon. Member (Mr. Tennant) would meet the case of those who undertook to supply gas or water by voluntary agreement.

MR. TENNANT

said, it would be met by the words "or otherwise."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, that if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London were adopted, one great object they all had in view would be defeated, as workmen employed by gas companies, who conspired together and left their work at a moment's notice would not be reached by the clause.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

suggested a form of Amendment which would make the clause applicable to all persons bound by contract, whether of service or otherwise.

MR. HERMON

hoped that the House surely would adhere to the original wording of the clause, with the addition of "or any contractor."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he would not object to amend the clause by making it applicable to persons employed by a municipal authority or public company, or by any company or contractor, upon whom was imposed by Act of Parliament the duty, or had otherwise undertaken the duty, of supplying gas or water.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that what was desired was that the same punishment which it was proposed to apply to employés should be applied to employers.

SIR HENRY JAMES

said, that if they struck out the words "contract of service," it would deprive the clause of the appearance of being directed against one class of the community. He would suggest that the clause should be worded to the effect that if a person wilfully and maliciously broke a contract, the non-performance of which would do injury to the inhabitants of a city, borough, or town, he should be liable to punishment.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

thought the adoption of the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton would be an uncalled-for extension of the Criminal Law. His object was not to deal with contracts generally, but with those who had engaged in a contract for a special and particular service of great public importance.

MR. HARDCASTLE

hoped the Committee would adhere to the clause as it stood. He thought the adoption of the Amendment would be an excessive extension of a penal statute.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

denied that on that side of the House they had any desire to extend the Criminal Law. The working men complained that they had been subject to exceptional legislation; and if they passed this Bill, as it stood, it would still leave that impression on their minds. The Bill would not be worth the paper it was written upon if it left that impression. The meaning of the clause was that men who were under contract of service were to be treated in a different manner, and were to be subjected to severer penalties, than men who were under other contracts. The right hon. Gentleman shrank from extending this legislation to other classes, because the moment they were touched by it, it would be impossible to carry it out, and what he desired was that the country should know that the Home Secretary was proposing to apply this legislation to a particular class. The Government were bringing in this Bill, not because they were particularly fond of it, but because the country had forced it upon them. If this Bill was allowed to pass in its present shape, it would practically re-enact the Master and Servant Act in a new form.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he was not going to be led by the speech of the hon. and learned Member into what he thought would be most unfortunate—a political struggle on this matter. The object of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt) and of himself (Mr. Cross), as well as of the Committee, was that this question should be settled, and it was a great mistake to introduce political element into it. The language of the hon. and learned Gentleman was not the language of working men. This matter had been discussed by them and fought from end to end. Pamphlets had been written on it. He denied that the present Bill could in any accurate sense of the word be described as class legislation. It was simply legislation arising out of the relations borne by certain persons, who were not workmen, to the public. The clause had simply been inserted in the Bill in order to avoid the danger to the public which might arise from the action of these persons. Mr. Crompton had written very thoughtfully on this question, and he fully carried out the view that the particular proposal under discussion was not one which could be regarded as class legislation. The sole desire of the Government was to do only that which was necessary for the safety of the public.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not fully met the point that had been raised. In the interest of the public the Government proposed to punish criminally workmen engaged in water or gas works who broke their contract; and what they desired was that the same principle should be applied to other persons connected with these works who, by breach of contract, caused danger or injury to the public.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, a breach of contract in this case was made criminal because it affected two important necessaries of life; but why should the poor workmen be subjected to penalties, and the gas companies, or any other contractors, be exempt? The whole sting of the Bill was that it applied to workmen only. He trusted the Government would accept the Amendment.

MR. WALTER

said, he was not sure that the Committee exactly understood the question on which they were about to divide, because it seemed to him that both the hon. and learned Member for Oxford and the hon. Member for Sheffield had overstated their case. He agreed in thinking that both gas and water companies, and their employés, ought to be held responsible for their neglect; but, as he understood the two hon. Gentlemen to whom he had referred, they wished to extend the responsibility to the persons who supplied the companies with coal or other materials necessary to enable them to carry on their business operations. The view entertained by the hon. Members amounted to a wish to apply the principle of the Mutiny Act—which governed the whole Navy, from the Admiral to the humblest seaman, to the contractor who supplied the Fleet with beef. On the whole, he thought the clause should not be strained so as to extend to third persons, but should be confined to the companies whose duty it was to supply the public with gas and water, and to their servants.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

thought the clause, as proposed to be amended, would not deserve the criticism passed upon it by his hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, in that it would not include the owners who supplied gas or water companies with coal. The Opposition were willing to give the Home Secretary credit for wishing to settle the question in a satisfactory manner; but if they thought that his clauses did not carry out his own object, he did not know that they could point out their consequences in any other way than by saying so. The right hon. Gentleman had accused them of desiring to extend the Criminal Law to contracts of various descriptions; but he (the Marquess of Hartington) wished to remind him that it was not the Opposition, but the Government, that proposed to apply it to contracts of this description.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

explained that the clause, as originally drawn, applied only to workmen; but what his Amendment sought to bring about was, that whoever wilfully refused to perform a contract of any kind and by such refusal entailed such consequences as were pointed out in the clause, and did so knowing what the effect would be, ought to be criminally liable whether he was a workman or not.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 127; Noes 108: Majority 19.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

, in moving the omission from the clause of the words "or public company," said, the clause, as it was framed, stated that if any third party was injured the workman must suffer. The workman, as the Bill now stood, had a remedy against the municipal authority, but he had no remedy whatever against a company. The clause was a creation of the Home Secretary. He (Lord Robert Montagu) submitted if the company had the power they would use it against the workmen.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 5 and 6, to leave out the words "or public Company."—(Lord Robert Montagu.)

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 200; Noes 19: Majority 181.

On the Motion of Mr. ASSHETON CROSS, Amendment made by inserting the words "or by any company or contractor," after the words "public company," in page 2, line 6.

MR. LOWE

then moved the omission, in page 2, line 9, after the words "wilfully and maliciously breaks a contract," of the words "of service," his object being to get a distinct decision as to whether there was to be any new penal legislation between the employer and the employed, which he hoped had been done away with by the Master and Servant Act. In other words, the question was whether a man who wilfully committed a breach of contract should be exempted from punishment because he was not in the position of a working man.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, lind 9, to leave out the words "of service."—(Mr. Lowe.)

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 123; Noes 98: Majority 25.

MR. BURT

moved, to insert in page 2, line 9, after the word "service," the words "and which services are necessary to carry on the operations."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he accepted the spirit of the Amendment, but it had been otherwise provided for.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

moved, in page 2, line 17, at end, add— Every such municipal authority or public Company as is mentioned in this section shall cause to be posted up, at the gas or waterworks, as the case may be, belonging to such authority or Company, a printed copy of this section in some conspicuous place where the same may be conveniently read by the persons employed, and as often as such copy becomes defaced, obliterated, or destroyed, shall cause it to be renewed with all reasonable despatch. If any municipal authority or public Company make default in complying with the provisions of this section in relation to such notice as aforesaid, they shall incur on summary conviction a penalty not exceeding five pounds for every day during which such default continues, and every person who unlawfully injures, defaces, or covers up any notice so posted up as aforesaid in pursuance of this Act, shall he liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 (Breach of contract involving injury to property).

MR. MACDONALD

moved, in page 2, line 18, to leave out "an employer or a workman," and insert "any person."

MR. NEWDEGATE

trusted that the Home Secretary would retain the words in the Bill.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

wished to know why the clause should not be applicable to everybody. He suspected that if it applied to the commercial classes and their breaches of contract, there would be a middle-class rebellion, which would be a very serious thing. It was obvious that the great stress would be upon the employed and not upon the employers, and they ought, therefore, either not make it criminal at all, or otherwise apply it to all classes.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

had already stated that the object of the clause was to meet cases in which property entrusted to the care of a workman would be injured by that workman suddenly leaving such property to its fate. But he had expressly excluded losses to the master caused by his being unable to fulfil his contract owing to the workmen repudiating theirs. This was an enormous alteration of the existing law. He had, however, no objection to the Amendment changing the words "employer or workmen," to "any person."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. FORSYTH

moved, in page 2, line 21, after "will be," to insert "to cause serious pecuniary loss or." An employer might be under contract to complete certain work by a given time, and the failure to complete it through the wilful or malicious default of his workmen might cause him immense pecuniary injury, yet the clause at present ignored such an offence.

MR ASSHETON CROSS

said, these words would re-introduce the whole mischief complained of in the Master and Servant Act, and would put upon the workmen in an aggravated form the pressure of which they now complained.

Amendment negatived.

MR. HOPWOOD

moved, in page 2, line 23, after "injury," to insert "and such valuable property shall be destroyed or seriously injured."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he could not accept the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

moved the insertion of words which made it an offence under the clause to "endanger human life or cause serious bodily injury."

Amendment agreed to.

On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

entered his protest against the clause in the form which it had now assumed. It was true that the word "person" had been substituted for "employer" or "workman;" but, to his dismay, the hon. Member for Stafford had failed to move his Amendment for the omission of the words "contract of service," and, consequently, the clause, as it now stood, was worse than ever, being directed solely against the workman. If he thought there was a fair chance of succeeding, he would divide against the clause; but he ventured to predict that it would leave as great a sore open as that which they had endeavoured to close.

MR. MUNDELLA

also protested against the change made in the clause, which would have the effect of punishing only the workmen.

MR. GOLDSMID

said, all appearance of equality of justice had disappeared from the clause, and he hoped that the hon. and learned Member for Oxford would divide against it.

MR. MACDONALD

had not before seen what would be the effect of the alteration; but he would endeavour, on the Report, to strike out the words "contract of service."

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 174; Noes 130: Majority 44.

Clause 6 (Power for offender under this Act, or under 34 & 35 Vict. c. 32, to be tried on indictment and not by court of summary jurisdiction).

MR. HOPWOOD

said, that as there had been various opinions and conflicting authoritative decisions as to the meaning of the word "coerce," in the interpretation of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, he begged to move, in page 2, line 36, at the end of the clause, that the following words be added:— Provided, That the word 'coerce' in the said Act shall he construed to mean 'compel or force otherwise than by persuasion, argument, or other peaceful means, In most instances the higher tribunals had interpreted the word in the sense of his Amendment. That too was the interpretation put upon it by the right hon. and learned Member the Recorder of London and by the Earl of Derby and Lord Cairns in the House of Lords, yet in the recent case of the cabinet makers, and occasionally before justices, it was not followed.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 36, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided, That the word 'coerce' in the said Act shall be construed to mean 'compel or force otherwise than by persuasion, argument, or other peaceful means.'"—(Mr. Hopwood.)

SIR HENRY JAMES

rose to Order. He wished to know if it were competent for the hon. and learned Member to introduce a definition in any clause other than the interpretation clause?

THE CHAIRMAN

observed that it was somewhat inconvenient to have such an Amendment brought forward now, and, without ruling that the hon. Member was out of Order, suggested that it would more properly be moved on the interpretation clauses.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he should be sorry to take matter out of the hands of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton, if that hon. and learned Gentleman thought all Amendments should proceed from the first Opposition bench. He regretted if he were on that point guilty of any infringement of Party subordination; but still, from the attention which he had given the subject, he had a right to express an opinion upon it, and unless ruled out of Order he should persist with his Motion.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

urged that the Amendment could not properly be moved on the clause under discussion, and he would not therefore debate it, though fully accepting its importance.

MR. MUNDELLA

suggested that the hon. Member might withdraw his Amendment if the Home Secretary would say that he would afterwards give a definition of the term "coerce" in the Bill.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 119; Noes 214: Majority 95.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 (Penalty on persons drunk and disorderly in factory).

MR. BUTT

moved to reject the words in the 2nd section which enforced imprisonment with hard labour on nonpayment of a fine in the case of a workman drunk and disorderly within a factory.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

undertook to strike out the words on the Report.

MR. MELDON

objected to the clause altogether. Why was this power of apprehending by a constable without a warrant to be exercised in a factory? The clause ought never to have been introduced into the Bill. He would propose its omission.

MR. MUNDELLA

doubted if any manufacturers had ever had occasion to complain of the hands coming to the factory drunk and being disorderly there. It was cruelty to suspect men of being guilty of such acts.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

, speaking as a factory employer, hoped the clause would be omitted.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the clause had been much pressed upon him, but if factory owners themselves thought it unnecessary he would omit it.

Amendment (Mr. Butt), by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (Mr. Meldon), agreed to.

Clause struck out.

Clause 9 (Proceeding before court of summary jurisdiction).

MR. HOPWOOD

moved, in page 3, line 20, to add— Provided, that upon the hearing and determining of any indictment, information, or complaint under section four, five, and seven of this Act, the respective parties to the contract of service, their husbands or wives, shall be deemed and considered as competent witnesses.

SIR HENRY JAMES

held that in matters of contract, the evidence of the parties was essential.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he would rather discuss this matter in its bearing upon the general law, as exceptions always created confusion. He would not object, however, to the Amendment appearing upon the Report, in order that it might be considered meanwhile.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 (General definitions).

MR. MACDONALD

moved the omission, in page 3, line 29, of the words "expressed or implied, verbal, or," his object being to confine the operation of the clause to contracts in writing.

MR. SAMUDA

said, his long experience convinced him that the adoption of the Amendment would be a serious injury to workmen, who were treated throughout the Bill in the most liberal manner.

Amendment negatived.

MR. JACKSON

then moved the insertion of the words after "and" in line 30, "the expression 'contract of service' includes contracts of hiring and of employment," and stated that his object was to remove all doubt as to the 4th and 5th clauses being applicable to employers as well as workmen.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that he would, before the Report, consider the best way of making the clauses applicable to masters, as well as workmen.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. PELL

, who had an Amendment the object of which was to include piecework in the operation of the Bill, especially as regards husbandry, expressed a hope that that also would be considered before the bringing up of the Report.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

moved, in page 3, line 38, to leave out from "any justice" to end, and insert—

  1. "(1.) As respects the city of London, the Lord Mayor or any alderman of the said city sitting at the Mansion House or Guildhall justice rooms; and
  2. "(2.) As respects any police court division in the Metropolitan police district, any Metropolitan police magistrate sitting at the police court for that division; and
  3. "(3.) As respects any city, town, liberty, borough, place, or district, for which a stipendiary magistrate is for the time being acting, such stipendiary magistrate sitting at a police court or other place appointed in that behalf; and
  4. "(4.) Elsewhere any justice or justices of the peace to whom jurisdiction is given by the Summary Jurisdiction Act: Provided, That, as respects any case within the cognisance of such justice or justices as last aforesaid, a complaint under this Act shall be heard and determined, and an order for imprisonment made by two or more justices of the peace in petty sessions sitting at some place appointed for holding petty sessions:

"And Provided, That the consent of Her Majesty's Attorney General or Solicitor General shall be previously obtained before any cause shall be heard or proceedings taken under this Act."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

assented to the Amendment as far as regarded the words "petty sessions."

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 14 (Recovery of penalties, &c. in Scotland).

THE LORD ADVOCATE

moved, in page 5, line 23, after "(3)," to leave out to end of line 25, and insert— Every person found liable on conviction to pay any penalty under this Act shall be liable, on failure of payment of the same, to be imprisoned, and in the case of the conviction being of an offence under the provisions of this Act, relating to persons being drunk, riotous, and disorderly in factories, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding the term for which he might under this Act have been sentenced to be so imprisoned in lieu of being sentenced to pay such penalty, or until such penalty shall be sooner paid.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

opposed the Amendment on the ground that it was contrary to what had already been decided with respect to England, and that no distinction ought to be made between the two countries.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

withdrew the Amendment, observing that the matter might be considered on the Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he thought it might save the time of the Committee if he made a statement to them relating to the new clauses of the Bill. The right hon. Member for the University of London had placed on the Paper a clause to generalize the Criminal Law Amendment Act. It was objected to the earlier clauses of the Bill that the terms used were not general, and it was said that if they were made general a great deal of what was felt to be a hardship would cease to be so regarded. He was extremely anxious that there should not be even an apparent difference of opinion in that House either on one side or the other on that point. He believed that what everybody desired was exactly what he stated when he introduced the Bill; he believed that they did not desire, on the one hand, to see the workman punished unjustly, or on the other to see him having power to tyrannize over his fellow-workman; and the more he had inquired into the matter the more convinced was he that a great deal of mischief had arisen from persons being singled out in that particular law. He had seen not only men, but also a great number of masters on that subject, and he felt bound to say that the more he had seen of the masters the more he had been struck with the generous way in which they had met the men on matters of that kind, in order that labour and capital might act together, so as to enable this country to compete with other countries. The right hon. Member for the University of London, who had proposed an Amendment dealing with part of the Act, stated some time ago that he thought the using violence to any person or property, or the threatening and intimidating any person in such a manner as to justify the offender's being bound over to keep the peace, should be dealt with in an ordinary Court of Law. Upon that matter he was not entirely in accord with the right hon. Gentleman, because he thought it very necessary that in the face of a statute of this kind it should be made clear that whatever was done in order to be a crime must be done with a view to coerce. Whatever then they did with the first section of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, it should be quite clear upon its face that the act done, in order to be criminal in this way, should be to compel a man to do something, or to prevent him from doing something which he had a natural right to do, and having had a great deal of communication with both men and masters, he thought the whole justice of the case might fairly be met by the new clause he was about to propose. If that were satisfactory to the Committee, he hoped it might be agreed to unanimously, in order to show that there was no feeling on the one side or the other except that of promoting union and amity as far as they could in the relations between employer and employed. The real effect would be that they should have generalized this whole Act of Parliament, and taken it out of the power of these men to make the complaint which they had hitherto made that this was special legislation. In conclusion, the right hon. Gentleman proposed the following clause:— Every person who with a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing or to do any act which such other person has a legal right to do or to abstain from doing shall use violence to any person or any property, or shall threaten or intimidate any person in such a manner as to justify a Justice of the Peace to bind over such person to keep the peace. Then there would follow the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Loudon (Mr. Lowe)— And any person, who with a view seriously to annoy or intimidate any person, persistently follows such person about, or hides any property owned or used by such person, or deprives him of or hinders him in the use thereof, or watches or besets the place where such person resides or is, or the approach to such place, or with one or more persons follows such person in a disorderly manner in or through any street or road shall, on summary conviction before two justices be imprisoned with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two months.

MR. LOWE

said, the Committee must be very sensible of the attention which the right hon. Gentleman had given to this subject and the pains he had taken to conciliate the reasonable susceptibilities of the working classes. It would, however, neither be respectful to the working classes, nor to the right hon. Gentleman himself, to proceed to discuss this new clause without further consideration, although, as far as he could at present grasp its meaning, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had fairly succeeded in solving the problem. In order that the matter might be thoroughly considered, he would move to report Progress.

MR MUNDELLA

had no doubt the right hen. Gentleman meant to do what was right, but it was obvious that before the Committee could deal with a clause of so much importance it should have the words of it before them. He should wish particularly to know whether it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to repeal the Criminal Law Amendment Act, or any portion of it, and whether his clause was in substitution of it, or any portion of it?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he thought the best course would be to place the words of the clause on the Paper, and to consider them at 2 o'clock to-morrow morning. ["No, no!"] He should wish, therefore, to withdraw the clause for the present, and to bring it forward to-morrow, and in the meantime to proceed with the remaining portions of the Bill.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

did not consider it would be fair to the great num- ber of persons out-of-doors, who were intensely interested in this question, that the Committee should come to a decision upon it to-morrow, and he would therefore suggest Thursday.

MR. MUNDELLA

appealed to the Home Secretary not to proceed with the clause before Thursday, as he should wish, for his own part, to obtain a legal opinion upon its construction.

MR MACDONALD

hoped the clause would not be taken before Thursday or Friday, as it was very necessary that the working class should be communicated with on the subject.

SIR CHARLES FORSTER

observed that Thursday had been already set apart for other Business.

MR. KINNAIRD

hoped the postponement would be long enough to admit of communication with those interested in it in Scotland.

MR ASSHETON CROSS

said, he should withdraw the clause, and a few minutes later he would state when the Government proposed to proceed with it.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

moved a clause repealing, with certain exceptions, the Acts specified in the schedule of the Master and Servants Act, 1867.

Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

moved an Amendment to repeal the Criminal Law Amendment Act, remarking that he should take the sense of the House upon it, in order that the workmen might see who were their friends and who were their foes.

MR. BUTT

suggested that the noble Lord should not mix up so important a subject as the repeal of the Criminal Law Amendment Act with entirely different matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress, to sit again upon Friday, at Two of the clock.