HC Deb 16 July 1875 vol 225 cc1579-89

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

, in rising to move the following new clause— (Repeal of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1871.) The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1871, shall he and is hereby repealed, said, he had only one object in view, and that was to settle that vexed question in a satisfactory manner. If he could do so, he was sure it would confer a great benefit on society at large. He would simply state that he had been very much struck, in the interviews he had had with masters and men, by the sincere desire which both sides had shown to come to a satisfactory settlement. He hoped the words which he had adopted in a subsequent clause, some of which were the same as had been placed on the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe) on the former occasion of the Bill being in Committee, would be accepted without much discussion, in order to prove both to masters and men that the Committee was united in this matter.

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

On Question, That the clause be read a second time?

MR. LOWE

said, he would have great pleasure in acceding to the clause as it stood, to which the right hon. Gentleman had just referred. He only wished to point out to him that it was almost a pity to retain these words, "shall use violence to any person or any property," because at present a person who did use violence could be punished by summons or indictment. It did seem unreasonable to have two offences, one for which a man could be imprisoned for two months, and another for which he could, under this Bill, be imprisoned for three. It was a pity also to make the proposed exception in the law of threats. The law was a very sensible law. If a man uttered a threat which the magistrate thought serious, he would have to find sureties, and, if he did not, to go to prison. Sureties were generally found, and nothing more was heard of the matter. It would be, therefore, a pity to have two sets of law. It was not wise to introduce unnecessarily such a wide distinction between Acts. He did not see that threats to compel a man to do or abstain from doing a thing were any worse than threats which came out of the malice of a man's heart, nor why the one should be so much more severely punished than the other. He thought it also a bad thing to have two sets of positions; one that a man did a thing with intent, the other that he did it with a view to compulsion. The matter would be placed on a much better footing if we were to get rid of this idea of compulsion. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman thought it wise to retain the words, he would not make any objection.

Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he was extremely obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for what had fallen from him. In a consultation with masters and men both sides seemed to desire to retain the words in question, and he hoped, therefore, the Committee would adopt the clause as it stood. He therefore begged to move the following new clause:— (Penalty for intimidation or annoyance by violence or otherwise.) 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 abstain from doing, shall use violence to any person or any property, or shall threaten or intimidate any person in such manner as would justify a justice of the peace in binding over the person so threatening or intimidating to keep the peace, and every person who, with a view seriously to annoy or intimidate any other person, shall persistently follow such other person about or hide any property owned or used by such other person, or deprive him of or hinder him in the use thereof, or watch or beset the place where such other person resides or is or the approach to such place, or shall with one or more persons follow such person in a disorderly manner in or through any street or road shall be liable to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months.

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

On Question, That the Clause be read a second time?

MR. BRISTOWE

, while agreeing to the repeal of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, regretted the introduction of the words which the Home Secretary had put in this clause. They were, in fact, a repetition, though in a different form, of the 1st section of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. He had no desire to oppose a clause which had been brought forward under such circumstances, and he heartily hoped that on both sides of the House they would unite to settle this question; but he must add that, in his opinion, the clause in its present shape was ambiguous, and would certainly require the introduction of verbal Amendments to make its meaning clear and distinct, or an interpretation clause.

MR. FORSYTH

concurred with his hon. and learned Friend in the opinion that the clause was so worded as to leave room for doubtful construction.

MR. DODSON

reminded the Committee that the Question was now that the clause be read a second time; the consideration of Amendments would properly arise on the Motion that the clause be added to the Bill. The substantial and operative part of the clause was the latter part of it, and it was with respect to that part that Notice had been given by his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of London. The only alteration made by the Home Secretary in that part of the clause was, that he had substituted imprisonment with hard labour for a term not exceeding three months for imprisonment with hard labour for a term not exceeding two months, as proposed by his right hon. Friend. Although the terms introduced by the Home Secretary were unnecessary in law, they were such slight modifications that it would not be worth while to differ about them.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, that having been in constant communication with all the various bodies of workmen who were interested in this matter, he thought himself entitled in their name and on his own behalf to thank the Home Secretary for the very fair way in which he had met the representatives of both masters and working men since Monday night, and the very important changes of which he had given Notice in his own name. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman had in his own clause incorporated the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London, and he hoped they were now about to arrive at something like a final settlement of this long-vexed question. Indeed, he believed the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman would tend to prevent a renewed agitation on the subject. All the working men had demanded was equality in dealing with matters of this kind, and as they had now obtained equality, they could have no ground for complaint. When the Judges were called upon to consider the Bill, he felt satisfied that they would place upon it a satisfactory interpretation, knowing, as they would, that it would apply to all classes of the community alike. At the same time he must observe that if Parliament were now legislating on the question for the first time, they would be undertaking a very dangerous task, for, as a lawyer had said to him, the clause, applying as it did to the whole community, left nothing to be complained of from the workmen's point of view—they demanded equality, and here they had got it—but if the unfortunate widow in the Scripture had happened to live when a clause of the kind was operative, the unjust Judge would probably have given her three months' imprisonment with hard labour.

MR. MACDONALD

, as one who had some interest in a very large portion of the working classes, concurred with the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) in thanking the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary for the patience, courtesy, and careful attention he had given to the representations of the working men, and felt it to be his duty to say on their behalf, that he believed from the first the Home Secretary had attempted to deal fairly with them; and he hoped the question would be settled once for all.

MR. BUTT

said, it appeared to him that the working classes were satisfied, not because the Bill was good in itself, but because it removed many of the grievances of which they had previously complained. He, for one, however, objected to making these special changes in the Criminal Law, because he believed there was sufficient power already existing to meet these cases. He also objected to the definition of intimidation, consisting in a magistrate's binding, or not binding, a man over to keep the peace. There was nothing in which magistrates exercised a wider discretion than they did in reference to matters of that kind. He did not think the proposed change was necessary, and at the proper time he should take the sense of the Committee upon that point.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

would have preferred if the clause had simply repealed the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1871. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman had very good reasons for the course he had taken, but he agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Limerick that great mischief might arise from the ambiguity of the clause. So far as it went beyond the existing law, it was altogether unnecessary.

MR. J. S. HARDY

said, the clause was necessary to meet the case of a man saying to another—"I will not strike you on the head, but somebody else may."

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

submitted that this was a superfluous enactment. It created, moreover, a new offence, the definition of which it left to the discretion of the magistrate. Such a mode of criminal legislation was dangerous and wholly without precedent. He thought the Statute Book ought not to be encumbered by such a clause.

MR. HOPWOOD

remarked that before that enactment passed care should be taken that it was not hurtful to the community. It was matter for remark that what had long been considered fitting legislation for a particular class was found inconvenient when applied to the entire community. The Home Secretary had himself not long since remarked that the multiplication of offences of misdemeanour was a crying evil, and yet this Bill proposed to enact four or five new offences altogether.

MR. SAMPSON LLOYD

pointed out that the existing law was inadequate to meet the cases of threats to injure property.

Question put and agreed, to; Clause read a second time.

MR. HOPWOOD

proposed an Amendment of the clause, in line 3, by omitting the third "any," and substituting for it "such," with the purpose of restricting the violence against which the clause was directed to violence offered to the person to be coerced or his property, instead of "any person or any property."

Amendment proposed, in line 3, to leave out the first word "any," in order to insert the word "such."—(Mr. Hopwood.)

MR. W. E. FORSTER

hoped it was a mistake, but undoubtedly the language of the clause went further than the Criminal Law Amendment Act which they were repealing. The words were— 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 abstain from doing, shall use violence to any person. He could not suppose that to be the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, and therefore hoped he would accept the Amendment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

hoped the Amendment would not be accepted, because the violence, by which it was sought to intimidate a man, might be directed towards his wife, children, or servants, and the clause was necessary to meet such a case as that.

MR. BRISTOWE

said, at all events, admitting that might be so, yet it was clear the clause went further than the old law, and created a new offence.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

observed that the real question was, whether this violence, if used to a man's wife, children, or servants, for the purpose of forcing him to do something which he ought not to do, ought not to be an offence.

MR. GOLDSMID

thought the Amendment would meet every case, and would not go so far as the words in the clause.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

trusted that the Government would accede to the Amendment. It was agreed that there was to be no exceptional legislation, and although the clause did not come under that description, yet it was probable it would be more used upon the labour question than any other. The draftsman could not be aware that he was by the present clause altering the present law, and it was only reasonable to ask that the new clause might leave the law as in the Criminal Law Amendment Act, where it was provided that the violence should be used to such person.

MR. CAWLEY

could not agree that the clause either created a new offence, or that it was unnecessary. The object of the clause was to prevent intimidation. One of the original causes of the passing of the Criminal Law Amendment Act was to prevent interference by what he might call extraneous means, such as interfering with children or property.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

was certain that everyone would wish to meet the case of violence to a man's wife or children, but such an offence was punishable under the present law, and therefore the words objected to were not wanted. What his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) had said was perfectly true—namely, that the clause went further than the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which enacted that the violence should be used to the particular person whom it was sought to coerce, and to nobody else.

MR. NEWDEGATE

asked whether it would be necessary to specify and name the persons intimidated?

MR. E. JENKINS

, in supporting the Amendment, said, there was a case not long ago in Oxfordshire of a farmer who, because one of his men joined a Union, thrashed him within an inch of his life.

MR. DODSON

hoped the Home Secretary would not be disinclined to re-consider this matter, and accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport. Cases of violence were substantially met by the existing law, which it was therefore unnecessary to enlarge.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he believed that cases of cutting bands and injuring machinery were already provided for. He asked the Committee to observe that it was now proposed for the first time, that an offence against an individual might be a ground for proceedings against the offender on the part not of the subject of the offence, but of a third person.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

would again put it to the Committee as a matter of broad common sense. Did the Committee mean to say that it should be wrong to use violence to A, to compel him to do something, and that it should not also be an offence to do the same violence to A's wife or children or anybody in his house for precisely the same purpose?

MR. BUTT

would support the Amendment if it was pressed to a division, because he considered that the clause extended the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, instead of mitigating them as it professed to do.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that if his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport went into the Lobby he felt bound to go with him, because the clause would make the law more stringent than it was at present, and he did not think it would work well.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

supported the Amendment.

Question put, "That the word 'any' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 225; Noes 112: Majority 113.

MR. BUTT

moved to omit the words or shall threaten or intimidate any person in such manner as would justify a justice of the peace in binding over the person so threatening or intimidating to keep the peace. Such a definition of the offence was, he thought, highly objectionable.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "property," in line 3, to the word "peace," in line 6, inclusive."—(Mr. Butt.)

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

did not agree with the clause as it stood, and thought the words proposed to be omitted by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick were particularly objectionable, and that the object desired could be attained by words of a different character. The offence should be defined with greater certainty, and less discretion given to the magistrates.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he could not accept the Amendment, though he was willing to insert the words, "on complaint made."

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the proposal in the clause was new legislation and stringent legislation, and it went far beyond what was now in the Criminal Law Amendment Act. An employer would have the right to proceed against a workman who sent a threatening letter to another workman. Surely the prosecution should be left to the man who was threatened; a third party ought not to be brought in.

Question put, "That the word 'or' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 241; Noes 104: Majority 137.

On the Motion of Mr. BEISTOWE, Clause amended, by inserting in line 3, after "shall," the words "with the view aforesaid."

On the Motion of Mr. W. E. FORSTER, Clause further amended, by inserting in line 6, after "peace," the words "on complaint made."

MR. HOPWOOD

moved, as an Amendment, in line 6, to leave out "seriously to annoy or," and insert "to." He objected to those words as vague, difficult to interpret, and likely to place those for whose benefit this Bill was intended in a worse position than before. He preferred that the description of the offence should simply be "every person, who, with a view to intimidate," &c.

Amendment proposed, in line 6, to leave out the words "seriously to annoy or," in order to insert the word "to."—(Mr. Hopwood.)

MR. BURT

said, that some time ago the Home Secretary had said he was anxious to bring this question of the relationship between masters and workmen to a settlement, and he had given clear evidence that he was perfectly honest in that desire. It was equally clear that all the Members of the House were as desirous of accomplishing that end as were the Government. That being so, it behoved them to see that when it was settled it was settled satisfactorily. That could not be done without the total repeal or considerable modification of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The clause under discussion undoubtedly possessed the great merit of placing all classes of the community on terms of equality. That was certainly a step in the right direction. But it was worth the while of the House to consider what sort of equality it was which the clause would produce; whether the equality, in fact, partook of the character of steady progress along the solid highway, or was not rather a case of the blind leading the blind into the ditch. The question which the workman would most likely ask himself was, whether men who were in no sense of the term criminals ought to be sent to prison? He did not think workmen would be satisfied as long as such a thing was possible. The real question for consideration was, what effect the proposal under discussion would have when it came to be definitely applied to strikes and locks-out? During such disputes there was always a large amount of ill-feeling manifested. The object of the employer was to prevent his old hands getting work elsewhere and to obtain fresh hands if he could. The object of the workmen was to prevent fresh workmen taking their place while they were on strike. Neither party was at such a time over scrupulous in the means they employed. He himself knew of a case where on the occurrence of a strike the masters sent into another district, and enticed away men by gross misrepresentations. When the new men arrived the men on strike very naturally induced them to remain out of work till they had exposed what the masters had done, whereupon the former returned to the district whence they had come. Well, he wanted to know whether the men had been more guilty of violence in that case than the masters? He feared the clause, as it stood, would be open to very great abuse, and he was therefore in favour of its being altered.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he was not disposed to retract a single word of what he stated some time ago with reference to this subject. The law was clearly laid down by the Royal Commission, by the Recorder, and in part also by the learned Judge who tried a recent case. What they wanted was to prevent one man worrying another man's life out. That was what was wanted, if it could only be put into an Act of Parliament. The effect of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London was really to express the serious character of the annoyance to be such as practically to destroy the man's free will. His object was to secure perfect freedom of individual action on the part of the workmen against all-comers whether masters or fellow-workmen. That was his sole and sincere object. He believed the words of the right hon. Gentleman carried out that object, and he would adhere to them till better words were suggested.

LORD ESLINGTON

, on the other hand, viewed the words with very considerable apprehension. It was all very well to talk of serious molestation. Suppose a man owed another a sum of money and the other followed him about. That would certainly be a serious annoyance. But ought it to come within the law?

Question put, "That the words 'seriously to annoy or' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 264; Noes 100: Majority 164.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department had intimated to him his readiness to accept the Amendment of which he (Mr. Mundella) had given Notice, provided he substituted £20 for £5. He was very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and he had great pleasure in adopting his suggestion. His Amendment would now therefore run thus—in line 12, after "liable to," insert "a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or to."

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.

Preamble agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next, at Two of the clock, and to be printed. [Bill 260.]