HC Deb 10 March 1905 vol 142 cc1054-127

[SECOND READING]

Order for Second Reading read.

*MR. WHITTAKER (Yorkshire, W.R., Spen Valley)

said, in rising to move that this Bill be read a second time, he felt the great difficulty in which a layman was placed in dealing with an extremely complicated question. He had devoted some time to find his way through the maze of legal decisions upon the points concerned in this Bill, and he found them very confusing. Even when he applied to some of the most learned lawyers in this House they had indicated to him that they were in almost as much confusion as himself, and they could not tell what the law really was. He was also free to admit that some of the proposals put forward in this Bill, when read for the first time by anyone who was not a lawyer and had not a very clear conception of the law of conspiracy, might look a little startling. As one without direct interest either as workman or employer he had endeavoured to look at this question impartially, and he had concluded that this Bill was one which he could recommend the House to accept.

He would first deal with the confusion existing in the state of the law and the diversity of the decisions, which he thought was a sound reason why something should be done to make the law clear. There was not only great diversity of opinion, but the confusion had been emphasised on fundamental points by decisions within the last few years, and those decisions when given had been given by seriously divided Courts. In one of the most important decisions there was an important minority amongst the Law Lords, and six of the Judges who were called in to advise with them differed from the decision which was ultimately arrived at. The result had been that when a decision had been given, afterwards it had been whittled away and further modified and guarded until it became difficult to understand. It was generally agreed that a bad motive could not make a lawful act illegal, but there was considerable difference in the judicial opinion upon that point. The law in cases of combination was not at all clear. Lord Bowen laid down that trade competition was recognised as an excuse for injurious interference with another trade by combined action, but Lord Herschell indicated in the case of "Allen v. Flood" that that was not the basis of the decision of the other Judges. This was already confusing and difficult. In "Lyons v. Wilkins" the trades union called out men who were working for a man named Schoenthal who was supplying material and goods to Lyons. They called out those men to assist them in their dispute with Lyons. That was declared to be illegal, and an injunction was granted against them. When they came to the question of traders in the great Mogul case it had been decided that it was quite legal for the great shipowners in their combination to coerce and compel the shipping agents in China so that they should not take freights for other shipowners. They were at liberty to coerce a third party to compel a second party to give them their freights. There was also the more recent case in Scotland, where the Glasgow fleshers had refused to do business with the salesmen if they supplied the co-operative stores. In order to drive the stores out of their particular business they brought pressure to bear by refusing to trade with them. It seemed to him that there was a great discrepancy in the law as it bore upon workmen on the one hand and traders on the other, because in one case they were allowed to bring pressure upon a third party, but in the other they were not. He wished to know, was it legal or not to induce the workmen of another employer to strike? Was the question of motive to be gone into? He found it difficult to follow the variations of meaning put uponsuch words as "motive," "object," and "purpose." An ordinary man was lost in the various meanings attributed to these words. It was rather important that as far as possible the law should be "understanded" by the plain man in the street and not only by the lawyers. An important point was whether it was legal for one man to persuade others to strike, and, if so, was it legal for two or three men to combine and persuade some other men to strike. In the decision given by Lord Davey in "Allen v. Flood," Lord Davey said— An employer may discharge a workman (with whom he has no contract), or may refuse to employ one from the most mistaken, capricious, malicious, or morally reprehensible motives that can be conceived; but the workman has no right of action against him. It seems to me strange to say that the principal who does the act is under no liability, but the accessory who has advised him to do so, without any wrongful act, is under liability. To persuade a person to do or abstain from doing what that person is entitled at his own will to do or abstain from doing is lawful, and in some cases meritorious, although the result of the advice may be damage to another. This is not a case of conspiracy. I do not say whether, if it were, it would or would not make an essential difference. A single individual might persuade men to withdraw from their employment, but Lord Davey thought it was doubtful, and he did not say whether it would be legal, for a trades union to persuade men to withdraw from their employment. These questions were vitally important, for they affected hundreds of thousands of men in this country in a most important matter affecting their every day life, namely, their wages, hours, and conditions of labour. It was, therefore, vital, as affecting one of their most important relations of life. Upon such a question the law should be clear, and it should not depend upon subtle distinctions and difficult interpretations of various words. Even learned lawyers could not say what the law was, and they could not tell trade unionists what they could or could not legally do under certain conditions. In these circumstances how could they expect unlearned working men to find their way through this maze of legal confusion, and yet they were bound by those laws and rendered liable for not obeying them. It was not fair, and it was not reasonable to ask the working men of this country to walk over this road which abounded in serious legal pitfalls.

His next point was that so far as the law had been clearly denned it was not what it was intended to be. He was aware that this question had been submitted to the Courts of law, and Courts of law had nothing to do with what was said in this House, although they had to decide upon the law as it now stood. He would deal for a moment with the decisions which had been given as to the legal interpretation of the law. His point was that the law as interpreted had been declared to be a different law from what it was intended to be. He should like to allude to what Lord Cairns said in the year 1875, when he introduced the Bill dealing with this subject. Everyone would admit that he was one of the greatest lawyers that this country had had during the last century. He read Mr. Russell Gurney's charge and he said that this Bill was intended to make the law as set out in Mr. Russell Gurney's charge. That was the intention of the Act as declared by this great lawyer. Lord Cairns said on the July 26th, 1875— The 6th George IV., the Act of 1826, abolished the Combination Laws, and made violence to person or property, or threats, or intimidation, or molestation, or obstruction with a view to interfere with masters or servants, a criminal offence. The first impression was that these forbidden acts were physical and mechanical acts, but by construction they were held to include the act of persuading in a peaceable manner. Accordingly, in order to meet this objection the 22nd Victoria was passed, which provided that an endeavour to persuade in a peaceable manner should not be deemed molestation or obstruction. They did, then, deliberately, in the 22nd year of the late Queen, by Act of Parliament, what by this Bill we ask you to declare is law to-day. Lord cairns went on— Still doubts arose upon the construction of the Act, and then came the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1871, which repealed both the previous enactments, and substituted other acts as criminal offences. Great dissatisfaction, however, was felt with the working of the Act of 1871, because the decisions upon it were not altogether uniform. The same old story The Recorder's charge in what was known as the "Cabinetmakers'" case embodied the law upon the subject. In the course of his charge the learned Recorder said —Lord Cairns quotes from Mr. Russell Gurney's charge— 'The question you will have to ask yourselves is whether the evidence shows that the defendants were guilty of obstructing and rendering difficult of access, the prosecutor's place of business, or whether anything which they did was calculated to deter or intimidate those who were passing to and fro, or whether there was an exhibition of force calculated to produce fear in the minds of ordinary men, or whether the defendants or any of them combined for that purpose. If you think that, it seems to me, then it will be your duty to find a true bill; but if you think their conduct may be accounted for by a desire to ascertain who were the persons working there, or peaceably to persuade them or any others who were proposing to work there to join their fellow workmen, who were contending, whether rightly or wrongly, for the interests of the general body, it seems to me that there is no evidence sufficient to establish the charge that is here made.' There Mr. Russell Gurney clearly lays down that peaceable persuasion was legal and Lord Cairns is quoting that. Lord Cairns goes on— This expression of the law in the Recorder's charge appeared to the Home Secretary to be exactly the intention and scope of the Act of 1871, and, so far as he was concerned his right hon. friend would have been content to trust that application of the Act in future cases. The working men, too, would, he believed, have been satisfied with that construction of the Act. The House of Commons thought, however, that it was not desirable to leave the question open to any doubt whatever, and words were accordingly introduced into the present Bill in order that future rulings in similar cases should be placed on the same footing as the case tried by the Recorder. After anxious consideration, and with valuable assistance in the House of Commons, the Home Secretary had endeavoured to frame a clause which should free the matter from future doubt. That was the intention of that Act, and it was intended specially to make it perfectly clear that peaceful persuasion was perfectly legal. The Home Secretary of that day, Mr. Cross had Mr. Russell Gurney's charge specially printed and sent round to the magistrates in order that they might know what the Government interpretation of the Act was. There they had a clear proof that the recent decisions which declared peaceful persuasion to be illegal were contrary to the distinct intentions when the Act passed this House. He knew this was not an argument for the law courts, but it was an argument for Parliament, more especially when the law had been administered for thirty years without any inconvenience to the people of this country.

As to the liability of trades union funds it was also thought to be clear in the Act. He thought no one would dispute the soundness of the legal decisions which had been given. His point was that great lawyers thought that was the law, and right up to the last everybody acted upon it as if it was the law. In that great case the Court of Appeal decided that it was the law. It was only when it got to the House of Lords that the new version was put on it. The first clause of the Bill was simply for the purpose of definitely legalising that persuasion which it was the object of the Act of 1875 to make perfectly clear, and he submitted that peaceful persuasion was proper, harmless, and absolutely necessary if trades unions were to have any reasonable and useful existence. The law provided for trades unionists attending in the vicinity of works, or homes, or anywhere that might be necessary, in order to obtain and convey information. It was thought that that covered peaceful persuasion. Lord Cairns thought it did. It was monstrous not to permit trades unionists to attend and persuade peacefully their fellow-workmen not to enter into competition with them when they had disputes with their employers. He knew it was said that was allowable now, and that it was unnecessary to enact this. There had been a question as to whether it was allowable, but if it was allowable now there could not be any harm in making it perfectly clear. With all deference he ventured to submit that it was not legal now, and he would ask this question—Would attending in the same way near the home or near the works to obtain and convey information be legal if it was not specially provided for in the Act of 1875? If it would, why was it provided for? If it would not, then to attend for the purpose of legal persuasion was illegal because it was not provided for. He went further. In the case of "Lyons v. Wilkins" the Court of Appeal, in 1896, confirmed an injunction restraining trades union officials— From watching or besetting the plaintiff's works for the purpose of persuading or otherwise preventing persons from working for them, or for any purpose except merely to obtain or communicate information. Lord Justice Kay said— I hold distinctly that it is illegal to picket the works or place of business of a man by persons who are distributed there for the purpose of trying by persuasion to induce the workmen not to work for him any longer, or to induce people who want to work for him to abstain from entering into an agreement with him to do so. Lord Justice of Lindley said— Now they were not there merely to obtain or communicate information; that is not their function. They were there to put pressure on Messrs. Lyons by persuading people not to enter their employment, and that is watching and besetting within Clause 4; that is not attending merely to obtain or communicate information. Under these circumstances they have gone too far, and have gone beyond what the Act of Parliament authorises, and I do not hesitate to say that it is a case in which, from the necessity of the thing, a quick remedy is actually and absolutely required. In a circular which has been sent round by the Miners' Association it is stated that— Under the existing law persons may be peacefully persuaded, provided the method employed does not constitute a nuisance to other people. That was not so. There was no nuisance whatever in the case of Lyons. It was admitted by the plaintiff, and taken as a fact by the Court, that the pickets used no violence, intimidation, or threats. There were only four persons engaged in that picket, there were never more than two of them at a time. They were there in relays of two. Could anything be more peaceful? They were there for the purpose of peacefully persuading others, and yet that was an evil for which Lord Lindley said that a quick remedy was actually and absolutely required. They could not have more peaceful persuasion than by two men attending to persuade without any threat or intimidation. It was very proper and reasonable conduct, but, unfortunately, it was illegal. There was another case— "Charnock v. Court "—in which Mr. Justice Stirling gave the decision. This was in connection with a strike at Halifax. Men were brought from Ireland to fill the places of the men who were striking. Two men went from Halifax to Fleet-wood to be on the landing stage when the vessel arrived bringing thirteen men from Ireland. These two men persuaded the thirteen men not to go to Halifax, and they paid their fares to go elsewhere. That was declared to be illegal. Could there be more peaceful persuasion than that by two men who had to go away 100 miles from the scene of the strike to a landing stage to persuade men not to work? And yet they were told that peaceful persuasion was not illegal. He was justified in saying that peaceful persuasion was not legal under the law. It would be illegal for one man to watch outside a house in order to persuade a man not to work, because that would be watching in the sense of the law. He was not allowed to watch unless it was simply to obtain or convey information. They were told that this clause would permit men to molest, terrorise, and intimidate, and that they should have a great crowd attending? Nothing of the kind. That was not the desire of the trades unionists of the country, and, if it was, it would not be legal. If a great crowd attended, watching and besetting a house without attempting to persuade, who could contend that they were trying to peacefully persuade. A large crowd could not contend that they were there for peaceful persuasion. Force, violence, and intimidation, following, were now and would be still illegal under the Act of 1875. They might say that peaceful persuasion might develop into terrorism and violence. Well, but they were not to punish a legal act because an illegal one might develop from it. Peaceful controversy between two individuals might develop into a fight, but they did not say that peaceful controversy should be illegal because somebody sometimes fought. They must deal with the fight and the illegality when it occurred, but they should not, deny men the power of peaceful argument and peaceful persuasion.

Further, they had a little light thrown on what would be the effect of this. The House was aware that attending in order to convey and obtain information was legal. He would read a short extract from a decision by Lord Justice Lindley on that point. In the case of "Lyons v. Wilkins" he said— It would be wrong to post people about a place of business or a house under pretence of merely obtaining or communicating information if the object and effect were to compel the person so picketed not to do that which he has a perfect right to do. Molesting, obstructing, threatening, and coercing were illegal, they should be illegal, and they would continue to be illegal, but argument and persuasion should not be made illegal. Persuasion was essential to the carrying on of a strike. This House long years ago decided, and decided wisely, that strikes must be legalised, and if strikes were to be legalised they must legalise the method by which they could be properly and peacefully carried on. Persuasion was absolutely essential to the carrying on of a strike. The strikers must wait about to catch the men and reason with those who were being brought in from distant places by the employers, and perfectly rightly by the employers. The employers were perfectly justified in scouring the country to get men to fill the places of the men on strike. That was perfectly legitimate, but he contended that it should be equally legitimate for the men without threat, violence, or intimidation to meet these men at the railway-station, in the street, or where-ever they could find them, argue with them, and persuade them not to go to take their places. That was absolutely essential if a strike was to be conducted. If it should be thought that more was required than was now in it, there was no objection to put in words to make the clause perfectly clear. Clause 2 reads as follows— An agreement or combination by two or more persons to do or procure to be done any act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute shall not be ground for an action, if such act, when committed by one person, would not be ground for an action. The wording of that followed very closely Clause 3 of the Act of 1875. That Act protected men in combination against criminal action if the act done would not be a criminal act when done by one person only. This clause was simply to carry that exemption into effect in civil proceedings. As the law now stood, trades unions were free from criminal proceedings when the act done by a trades union was an act which would not be criminal in the case of one person. This clause provided that they should be equally free from civil proceedings if the act done in union was one which would not involve a civil action if done by one man only. That would go far to equalise the position between traders and workman. A combination of traders for their own trade benefit, even if it meant the injury and crushing out of innocent competing traders, was legal under the law. Lord Justice Bowen put this very plainly in the Mogul case. He said— The just excuse for inflicting ruin on the dissentient shipowners was that instinct of self-advancement and self-protection which was the incentive of all trade. Traders were justified under the law in inflicting ruin on others in competition with them, and yet working men were to be restrained far within these limits. Lord Morris put the position of the capitalist and the trader in the same case very strongly. He said— The object was a lawful one. It is not illegal action of a trader to aim at driving a competitor out of trade, provided the motive be his own gain by appropriation of the trade, and the means he uses be lawful weapons. … Again, what one trader may do in respect of competition a body or set of traders can lawfully do. That was what they asked in connection with the working men, that what one trader might do in respect of competition a body or set of men might lawfully do. That was, in promoting their own trade interest, they in combination should be permitted to do what it would be legal for one to do. What he asked—and he wished to be precise on this point—was that workmen in promoting their "trade" interest should be placed in the same position. On this point he would quote what Lord Justice Bowen had said in the Mogul case in 1883. Discussing whether a combination of capitalists differentiated the case of acts jointly done by them from similar acts done by a single man of capital his Lordship said— I find it impossible myself to acquiesce in the view that the English law places any such restriction on the combination of capital as would be involved in the recognition of such a distinction. If so, one rich capitalist may innocently carry competition to a length which would become unlawful in the case of a syndicate with a joint capital no larger than his own, and one individual merchant may lawfully do that which a firm or a partnership may not. What limits, on such a theory, would be imposed by on the competitive action of a Joint Stock Company, Limited, is a problem which might well puzzle a casuist. The truth is, that the combination of capital for purposes of trade and competition is a very different thing from such a combination of several persons against one, with a view to harm him, as falls under the head of an indictable conspiracy. But a trade combination would not be a combination for the purpose of harming; the predominant motive was that it was to benefit themselves and to promote their own interests— There is no just cause or excuse in the latter class of cases. There is such a just cause or excuse in the former. There are cases in which the very fact of a combination is evidence of a design to do that which is hurtful without just cause—is evidence—to use a technical expression—of malice. But it is perfectly legitimate, as it seems to me, to combine capital for all the mere purposes of trade for which capital may, apart from combination, be legitimately used in trade. To limit combinations of capital, when used for purposes of competition, in the manner proposed by the argument of the plaintiff, would, in the present day, be impossible—would be only another method of attempting to set boundaries to the tides. All that he asked was that trade unions should be placed in the same position as capitalists. So long ago as 1851, Mr. Justice Erle in "Reg. v. Rowlands," said that— The intention of the law is at present to allow either of them to follow the dictates of their own will with respect to their own actions and their own property; and either, I believe, has a right to study to promote his own advantage, or to combine with others to promote their mutual advantage. Lord Justice Bowen quoted this case in support of his views as to the position of traders in the Mogul case. The present. Colonial Secretary, two years ago, said— The law, in his opinion, operated harshly against trade unions. It was not clear that a labour dispute was a defence against civil actions for injury through a dispute because of combination. Although decisions were conflicting the balance of judgment appeared to be that combined action which intentionally injured another in his trade was illegal, unless just cause or excuse could be shown. Then it was sometimes said that if this clause was passed such conduct as everybody condemned, and which took place in the case of "Quinn v. Leathem," would be practically justified. He ventured to say that that was not so. That was a case of vindictive action, the sole object of which was to punish and injure Leathem. There was no trade dispute within the meaning of the Act of 1875. The trade dispute was all over, and the action then taken would not have been legalised under this clause. Lord Brampton made that perfectly clear in the case. His Lordship said— It could not be—it had not even been suggested—that these acts were done in furtherance of any of the lawful objects of the association as set forth in their registered rules, according to the statutory requirements, nor in support of any lawful right of the association, or any member of it, nor to obtain or maintain fair hours of labour or fair wages, nor to promote a fair understanding between employers and employed, and workman and workman. Such proceedings would still be actionable; and if any real doubt existed it could be made perfectly clear when the Bill was in Committee. Trade unions were combinations, and in the disputes which took place the working men could not act as individuals. They were bound to act in combination. It had to be decided in the public interest that men should be enabled to combine in their unions and strike; and if they were to do that effectually they must be relieved from the burden of the law, as it now pressed on them, in regard to combination and conspiracy. They must be relieved as the traders and capitalists were relieved, and so long as they did not do anything which would be illegal in the individual, it should be legal for them as a union to do. Personal liability, both civil and criminal, would remain untouched; and the proposed legislation would make workmen and employers equal in the same way as traders and capitalists were now equal.

Clause 3 provided that trade union funds should not be liable to civil procedure; that was to say, that they could not be sued in consequence of the action of any of their members. It was never thought that they were liable till 1900. He would point out that that question had never been raised in the Courts for thirty years. Everybody believed that trade union funds were protected; that had never been doubted. Even the Appeal Court decided that they were not liable. It was only the House of Lords that had decided that they were. It did seem an anomaly that large corporations, having funds, should not be liable for anything that their representatives might do. But it must be remembered that, when dealing with trade unions, they were dealing with bodies which Parliament had, in 1871, deliberately and wisely placed in a special and anomalous position. Trade unions were not, under that Act, given the rights, privileges, and liabilities of corporate bodies. Trade unions could not be registered as companies, as benefit societies, or as industrial societies. It was believed for thirty years that they could not be sued, and for thirty years they were not sued. None of the terrible misfortunes which they were told would follow the passage of the Act of 1871 did follow during those thirty yeas. The arrangement worked well. It might not be logical, but the Lord Chancellor had recently declared that our laws were not logical. Many of them were, however, practical, and worked satisfactorily. If trade unions continued to be made liable, means of evasion would be discovered. But with what result? Trade unions would be weakened, control of the officials and of the executive would be weakened, and responsibility would be weakened; and that would be a Very undesirable thing for the nation as a whole. If this Bill were passed individuals would always remain liable. That would be a sufficient deterrent. Working men would think more of their own skins than of their trade union funds.

Some people said: "Oh, we object to this special legislation to protect the interests of the working classes." He ventured to remind the House that in the past history of this country there had been a great deal of special legislation passed the other way. He called to mind the Statute of Limitations in the reign of Edward III.; the Statute of Apprentices in Elizabeth's time; the legislation of James I. for regulating strictly the conditions, wages, and hours of labour under which men should work, and compelling them to work for those who wanted them to work, not allowing them to move away where they wanted. There was a great deal of legislation in behalf of the employers, and some of it very stringent legislation. In 1800, and up to the year 1825, it was punishable by statute for workmen to combine in order to improve their wages and condition. And what was the result of that stringent legislation in the first quarter of last century? The relations between employers and workmen were more strained and difficult than ever they had been before or since, and there was violence and outrage. Wonderfully better conditions between employer and workmen had prevailed during the past thirty years, and that was mainly due to the position in which the trade unions had been put. Trade unions had been given greater power, and status, and responsibility; and they had risen to that responsibility. It had improved their position; but the recent decisions of the House of Lords had paralysed them. Employers might rejoice. It was, perhaps, natural that they should, when feeling ran high. He quite understood that employers should be very glad to have the power of the trade unions checked and limited; but he ventured to say that it would not be, in the long run, good for them or for the unions. Trade unions in this country had enormously improved the character, condition, and self-respect of the working men, and had given them an independent position; and it would be a calamity if that independence, which had been for the good of all, were seriously crippled.

He, and those who supported this Bill, had no desire that there should be any facility given for terrorising or acting wrongfully. All that they wanted was that trade unionists should be able to exercise their ordinary civil rights. Nor was he there to defend everything done by trade unions and trade unionists. They might occasionally have acted wilfully, have, at times, been short-sighted and self-willed, and have acted somewhat tyrannously; but what of the employers? Was there any man in the House who would approve of everything they had done, or say that they had always acted wisely? Were they to indict a whole class simply because there had been weakness here, and shortcomings there? Employers were human; and trade unionists were human. Both had committed faults; but, on the whole, he ventured to say that the trade unions of this country had done remarkably well. And he thought that no greater testimony could be given to the wisdom of the legislation of the last half century than the men who sat in this House as distinctive labour representatives. He thought it would be admitted on all sides that there were no men in this House, of any class, who were more entitled to, and did not more receive, the respect of every Member of the House. Test them as they would: for character, ability, for general bearing in the House, they bore comparison with any section of the House. And these were the chosen representatives of those unions and of those classes in behalf of whom he appealed for this Bill. The policy of the past had been abundantly justified. It gave working men special facilities and freedom to work out their own interests and to defend their own position. We in this country were a law-abiding people; and there was more respect for law and constitutional authority among the masses of the people than was to be found in any other nation on the face of the earth. He ventured to say that that was because they had more freedom. The effect of the recent decision would do harm, and it might even beget danger. Thirty years ago trade unions were brought out into the light of day. He remembered one of the first great Blue-books he read was the Report of the Commission in 1857 on the outbreaks at Sheffield and elsewhere. The result was not to bring more oppressive legislation to bear on the trade unions but to free them, bring them out into the light of day, and to trust their leaders. Nothing could be more satisfactory or beneficial. The trade unions had justified the confidence reposed in them. Let that confidence be restored. Let the law be restored to the position in which it stood before; at the same time, put down ever and with a stern hand molestation, threats, and intimidation, but give the men every facility to promote their own interests peacefully and properly, and, thereby, remove all temptation to resort to objectionable practices. He begged to move.

*MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid.)

said he desired to thank the hon. Gentleman on behalf of himself and his colleagues for the very high, perhaps the too high, tribute for their deserts which he had paid to the Labour Members. He thought, however, that he might fairly say that they had always tried to comport themselves in the past in a respectful and honourable manner. He also wished to express the pleasure with which he had listened to the very able speech of the hon. Gentleman and to thank him for the very clear and convincing manner in which he had brought the question before the House. He thought the speech was listened to with pleasure by hon. Members in all parts of the House, and he desired to thank the hon. Gentleman in the names of the trade unions of the country for his action. So great was the interest taken in this Bill that there were at the present moment within the precincts of the House fully 200 of the leading men of the trade unions of the country, so valuable did they regard it. He thanked the hon. Gentleman for his defence of trade unions and for the manly way in which, in his beautiful peroration, he showed that instead of being instruments of evil and institutions of wrong, as men would make them out to be, they were one of the largest elements in the welfare and progress of this country that had been in operation during the last thirty years.

It would be a piece of conceit on his part if he said that he would discuss this question from the lawyer's point of view. He did not approach it as a lawyer, and he would be candid and say that he did not approach it as a trade unionist; he approached it as a citizen of a great and industrial country, and he believed that unless there was some remedy, some definition given to the position in which they found themselves, that, instead of peaceful accord, compromise, and growing conciliation, he was very much afraid that there would be a repetition, or at least an approach to the state of things which existed thirty years ago. At present the question was in the clouds; it was in a kind of chaos; and they were asking where they were. The Home Secretary himself acknowledged that there was very great unrest in the country, and that that unrest should be allayed. The right hon. Gentleman said that some steps should be taken, but he guarded himself by adding that those steps should not be taken until after the Commission had reported. The programme of the Government, however, was not as heroic as in previous sessions; they were now thinking nationally and not Imperially; and it would have been better if they had inserted in their programme a Bill to remedy the grievances of trade unionists and to define the law regarding them. They had had two or three stages in connection with the measure. Last session the Government removed their embargo; he did not say it was an open and avowed embargo, but it was a tacit embargo. The House was given a freer hand, and there was a sudden rebound in the voting; a minority of thirty being converted into a majority of thirty-nine. The question was so important that he did not think it was necessary to wait for the Report of the Commission; especially when they remembered that the Commission was one-sided. If it were a Commission to inquire into the relations between employer and employee why were the most important interests in the country unrepresented? Why was there not on the Commission a representative of the principal trade unions. He had read of a Commission very much like this. It was described in Washington Irving's Knickerbocker's History of New York. He said that the reason why, and the cause of, the crooked streets in New York was because the matter was referred to a Commission of Dutchmen, and while they were deliberating on the construction of the city the cows made tracks down to the river and the squatters built their houses before the Commission reported. He thought the present Commission instead of expediting, would delay the business they had in hand; and therefore the Government would do well to include this measure in their sessional programme, He said with all due deference that it would have been better if, instead of including Chinese labour last year, they had dealt with the trade union question.

The position he laid down was that the trade unions of this country were a large element in its commercial progress and stability. All they required was concord, compromise, and conciliation, and it should be the aim of all parties to try and establish and enlarge, as far as they could, that feeling and that spirit. From the national point of view, he thought the Government would do well to assist this Bill through the House in order that it might pass into law this session, and that they might know exactly were they stood. It was not necessary to dilate on the views of trade unionists after the full statement of the hon. Gentleman, but his experience went back prior to 1871. He was a trade unionist at the time the Sheffield Commission met, he had seen men called out of their beds at night, manacled and sent to prison, because they asserted the highest duty and the greatest privilege of human life, namely, endeavouring to get the best price for their labour it was possible to get. If the House wanted to get any worse character of him than it had, he might state that he led a strike when he was fifteen years of age; now he was not only entering on the sere and yellow but the sedate period of life and took a calmer view of the position of affairs. All the trade unions wanted prior to 1875 was protection for their funds, the settlement of internal disputes without resorting to law, immunity from collective liability, and the repeal of all criminal legislation applied to working men as such. He preferred the bold attitude of the hon. Gentleman who intended to move the rejection of the Bill to the policy of evasion which would defer the matter until the Commission had reported. He always preferred a frank opponent; but he would ask the hon. Gentleman not to dwell upon future forebodings or fears, but to state, in his experience of thirty years, any instances in which he could complain of the action of trade unions. He thought he might safely say that his colleagues and himself on many occasions were credited with a double portion of original sin. During the last thirty years—since 1875—he would venture to say, through acting on the advice and desires of trades union leaders, there had been a gradual coming together of the employers and employed. There had been introduced into their relations the gradual use of conciliation.

Immediately the Act of 1875 was passed the managing committee of the Durham Miners' Organisation, of which he was a member, sought to establish a sliding scale for the peaceful regulation of their labour. But they were not alone in that, on every hand responsible trades union leaders sought to arrange something whereby the relations between their unions and the employers might be settled without resorts to force or law, or in any way beyond conciliation. The progress which conciliation had made was shown by the fact that in 1898 there were 16,000 people whose relations with their employers had been regulated by conciliation, and in 1901 that number had increased to 570,000. He appealed to any employer in this House to say whether conciliation had not put money in his pocket. He put it, on the low level of money, whether conciliation had not obviated strikes many a time, and whether it was wise on the part of employers to risk the hindrance and the retarding of the growth of that spirit. Were he an employer he would foster it by every means in his power, because trust begat trust and force evoked force, and if men could not defend themselves in the light of day they would defend themselves in the darkness. Let him put the matter in another way. From the complaints and forebodings they had heard, they might believe that every day riot ran rampant through their ranks and the field of commerce, but he ventured to say there was no country on the face of this earth where there was less disturbance than in this country. Without going into the definition of words, and without saying that the employers had all the virtues and the men all the vices of human life, let them say that each had a share of both. He was not going to say that the employers with whom he had to do were anything more or anything less than men. Let the employers say the same of them. The importance of this question demanded its settlement. It was not a Party question and it ought not to be. There were questions about which Parties might conflict, but this question lay at the root of the industrial stability of this country. We came nearer to the Continent every day by transit, and competition with foreign countries. Could anyone think for a moment that by depleting the funds of the trade unions they would destroy strikes? He had seen more deplorable strikes in cases where there was not a penny in the fund than where the organisations concerned had a large fund. It was suggested that where the men had a large fund they guarded it, and were chary of engaging in any action which might jeopardise it. Let not employers run away with the idea that lack of money would prevent strikes. If men felt aggrieved, though they had not a cent, they would resent it and fight. Let them not think they would prevent a strike by depleting a union of its funds.

Let them look at this question from the broad position of the national view. From that point of view the sooner a decision was given the better, and the sooner the Government took the matter in hand the better for all concerned. He was about to give a few quotations as to the haziness of this question, and he recollected reading somewhere that "out of the eater cometh meat," and they sometimes got sweetness from their enemies. The hon. Member for Stretford had stated on a previous occasion that they were in a precarious position in regard to this matter, and that the sooner it was settled the better. The hon. Member said— Too much at the present time was left with the Judge and too little definition laid down by the Legislature to enable him to deal with a very difficult subject matter. He agreed they ought not to have Judge-made law upon a question of this sort. They should have rules and regulations laid down by Parliament. He now desired to point an argument used by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary very much, but really the right hon. Gentleman's argument was the reductio ad absurdum. It was that if this Bill was passed it would be competent for a man to come to his knocker and go away, and another man to come to his knocker, and forty or fifty men to come to his knocker, until it would become a nuisance. He submitted that a question of this kind should not be dealt with that way. Another argument which the right hon. Gentleman used was that it was bestowing a privilege on a particular class. It was bestowing no privilege whatever. All they asked for was the liberty to use their power to persuade. In human life that was one of its perquisites; if you took out of it the power of persuasion human life would be barren; both Parties tried it at election times on the platforms of the country, they tried to persuade. They had all tried it on their sweethearts, why should not the trade unionist try it upon his fellow-workman. How would this appear to the simple minded workman who saw his employer bringing workmen from other places, not because of the love his employer had man from bettering his condition, either by obtaining shorter hours or higher wages. If he attempted to persuade those men to go away he immediately found that he was, if not a criminal, amenable to the law of the land. He would say to himself that "this is a strange thing that my employer can do that which I may not do." That was a simple statement of the fact, but it was the true one.

He had heard it stated—he hoped it was not true—that the employers of the country had thrown the burden of circularising on this question upon the mineowners of the North. He hoped it was not true, but it was a strange coincidence that they had not received any circulars from any other associations. That being so, they might assume that the statement was correct. He therefore appealed to the coalowners in this House to give some instances of some serious cases that had happened in the last few years in justification of the statements they had made. He was sorry to see the organisation of the employers of the North lending themselves to these fears and forebodings. He had a circular sent to him by an association, with which he as the corresponding secretary for the Miners had a deal to do so far as Durham was concerned, and he ventured to say that there was not a single phase of their relations that was not covered by conciliation. If he went to compel any man then let them make him liable for his act, but if he went to persuade let them not restrict his God-given privilege to speak; as he had a right to speak in a straightforward way. As things stood now the workmen were in a position of inequality, all they asked for was justice. Anything that depleted the union funds was of course to the benefit of the employers, and naturally they supported the opposition to this Bill. Now all he said was "Give us fair play." He would concede this, if a committee or an organisation deputed any man whatever to do that which might be wrong he had no objection to it being made liable, because it was the union itself which was doing it. But if he went to a place where there was a strike without the sanction of the committee, and urged the men to do that which was wrong he ought to be punished, and the funds ought not to be mulcted. The day had come when they should drop all reference to the Taff Vale and other cases. Let the dead past bury its dead. Let them start anew. Let them have a law fair, honourable, and just to every man. He did not want to repel the two interests in the commercial world; he wanted amicability and concord to be centripetal forces, and as he believed this Bill contained the principle of binding force he had great pleasure in seconding the Motion for its Second Reading.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

*SIR THOMAS WRIGHTSON (St. Pancras, E.)

said he would not like the impression to get abroad that he was moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months in any spirit of hostility towards trade unionism. The last speaker challenged him, as a large employer of labour in the North of England, to state his view with regard to the work of trade unions in that part of the country, and he had great pleasure in telling him that the action of these unions there had been extremely beneficial. No doubt both for employers and employed it was of enormous advantage that they should have an organisation to deal with. When employers had to meet a large number of workmen it was extremely difficult to arrive at their real views, and, therefore, it was most desirable that there should be some recognised union which gathered up the different threads and which was accepted by the workmen as authorised to present their views. He quite concurred with both the mover and seconder that there was a very great advantage in the existence of strong trade unions. He qualified the sentence by the use of the word "strong," because there was a very great difference indeed between strong and weak unions. They had had the benefit of strong unions in the North of England, and he could not too much exaggerate the result of that benefit; they had had very few strikes in Northumberland and Durham. He had been in business for a great portion of his life in that part of the country and he was consequently perfectly familiar with the conditions of industry there, and he was glad to know that they had in that House men from that district who enjoyed the respect of Members on both sides as well as the confidence of their; constituents in the North. He marvelled, however, that the strong unions should throw in their lot with the weaker unions in asking for such an enormous concession as was embodied in that Bill. He could not say that he approved of the Bill under any circumstances, even if it was to be administered only by those who were connected with strong unions, but he did oppose any legislation of that kind, considering the difficulties associated with the whole legal aspect of the question, and he did think it would be a great mistake to apply any such principles to the industrial interests of this country.

He did not propose to go into the legal question, for he was to be followed by a very sound lawyer who would be better able to deal with that matter. He would simply remark that there had been very great confusion caused by the decisions recently given as to what could and could not be done in trade disputes. The whole question was in an unsettled condition, and that, no doubt, was an unfortunate state of things. The sooner it was remedied the better. But they were discussing on that occasion, not so much the remedy as the procedure for securing that remedy, and that was where the great difference came in between his views and those entertained by hon. Gentlemen opposite. What had in the past been believed to be the law as to the liability of trade unions had been utterly upset by recent decisions given in the law Courts. Was the House of Commons a tribunal likely to settle a question of that kind? He said distinctly that it was not. [A Voice: What are we here for?] They were not there to deal with legal questions, to do that they must have a direct leading of some sort. A Royal Commission was appointed some time since to deal with the question, and some criticisms had been offered because no member of the Labour Party had been placed upon it. But he understood that a certain gentleman was put on it because he was known to take a very deep interest in labour matters and to enjoy the confidence of the Labour Party. [Cries of "No."] At any rate, he understood that that was the idea in selecting that gentleman; he was also told that the labour leaders were invited to give evidence before the Commission and, unfortunately, refused to do so. He held that in the darkness with which they were surrounded in connection with the legal aspects of the question they would not be justified in attempting to pass a Bill of that kind without the light which they might expect to receive from the investigations conducted by the Royal Commission. That was the principal ground upon which he opposed the Motion for the Second Reading of that Bill. If only they could have introduced legislation on lines recommended by the Royal Commission and embodying probably the views of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House there could be no doubt that that would be the best method of procedure, in view of the fact that they were so much hampered by the obscurity created by recent legal decisions. Last year they had a distinct pronouncement from the Prime Minister, who declared tint in passing a Bill of that kind they had not to consider in the first place the interests of employers or workmen or the merits or demerits of trades unionism, but rather the interests of society as a whole, and the right hon. Gentleman suggested to the House that, in the absence of such assistance as might be derived from the Royal Commission, it was inadvisable to attempt to pass legislation of the nature proposed. The situation had not been altered since the Prime Minister uttered those words; it was practically the same to-day as a year ago.

He would like to say a few words with regard to the present powers possessed by trade unions. In this Bill they were asking for a great extension of their powers. But what were their present powers, and how did they compare with the position occupied by employers of labour. They must remember that the employer of labour had to invest his capital in plant at a certain spot, and it was of great importance to him that his trade should be carried on there, whereas the individual workman could take away his labour, which, after all, was his capital, to some other part of the world at any moment he chose. He was not, in fact, hampered by the same considerations of fixity of capital. Employers of labour, in order to carry on their business, were also compelled to make contracts, and they therefore ran the risk that the men they employed might at any time demand a higher wage than was provided for in the estimate for the work. All these things ought to be considered. The workmen had a great deal of power as compared with employers. Let them go back to the origin of trade unions. Their first function was simply to watch the interests of labour with regard to wages, but they had now gone a good deal beyond that; they dictated terms of employment, and even the number of apprentices; they dictated the amount of work to be done by either man or machine, and they also dealt with questions of overtime and piecework, and the discharge of non-union men. The question was whether in the general interests of the commerce and trade of this country it was wise to give such an increase of power as this Bill proposed. There was no doubt, after the condition which had been created as to the want of exactness in the law, that some change would have to be made, but everything pointed to the undesirability of hasty legislation. If such a measure as this were passed, it would probably be found when the Report of the Royal Commission was published that they had passed a Bill of a character entirely different from the recommendations of that Commission, and which would not commend itself to the approval of the country. The powers of trade unions had a very important bearing upon the cost of the production of the employees. They tended to the restriction of the labour of the individual, and, consequently, to increase of cost. That was very important from the point of view of the interests and progress of employment in this country. Strong unions and weak unions were necessarily bracketed together, but legislation which in the hands of a strong union was harmless might, in the hands of a weak union, led by weak men, result in great harm being done. This country had never had freedom of trade in the fiscal sense; he hoped they might, at all events, have freedom in labour, and that masters and men might determine between themselves their rates of wages without the interference of a weak union.

It was said that the unions were too high-minded to begin the practice of picketing. It was all very well to make such professions, but a circular had been sent by one of the trade unions telling Members that their votes would be watched and their names sent to all the trade unions in the country. What was that but picketing? And the unions had commenced it very early by attempting the coercive or "peaceable persuasion" of Members of Parliament. He was sorry to oppose a measure brought in by trade unions, which he did not hesitate to acknowledge had done him so much good in the past. As an employer of labour he had had little trouble with strikes, having always been able to arrange matters with his men. Therefore, he had no feeling whatever against trade unions, but he did implore them to move slowly in this matter, and not to press forward a Bill which would never receive the sympathy and assent of the country. He suggested that action should be deferred until they had the information to be supplied by the Royal Commission, which would enable them to deal with the matter in a proper way. Many Members who were going to vote for the Bill had told him they did not believe in it. They were being driven by the circular, which practically threatened to knock them out of the House of Commons at the next election if they voted against the Bill. He did not intend to give way to any such pressure. He had stated his reasons for opposing the Bill. Honestly desiring the law to be brought into the shape most suited to the requirements of the trade of the country, he was in favour of some change, but he did not think it ought to be in the direction of giving such enormously increased powers to trade unions. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.

*MR. DUKE (Plymouth)

, in seconding the Amendment, said that if he could have reconciled his view of what he ought to do with not voting against the Second Reading of this Bill he would gladly have done so, not because of the "peaceable persuasion" to which reference had been made, but solely with a view to the public interests involved in the Bill and, not least among them, the great interest of the country as a whole in the strength and effectiveness of trade unions. He did not object at all to "peaceable persuasion" of Members of Parliament; every man interested had a right to tell hon. Members that their working-class constituents or any other body of their constituents would watch their votes. But before any such persuasion was applied he had had to consider this Bill, and had told the Trades Council in his own constituency that the Bill proceeded on lines which were absolutely inadmissible and did not afford a means of settlement of this question. He fully recognised that there was a large section of the working classes which desired this Bill to pass. That was a factor to be considered, but it was not the governing factor. The House of Commons had to consider whether the Bill was one which ought to pass, whether it was a good or a bad Bill, and he had come to the conclusion that it was a bad Bill, which could not be satisfactorily amended in Committee, and which, therefore, he ought to oppose on Second Reading.

It had been said that there was great confusion in this branch of law. He thought, however, that there was not more confusion in this than in some other of the higher ranges of legal discussion. There were ranges of law in which every question was a contentious question. No human ingenuity could settle the law of a country so that there should be no contentious questions. Personally, he did not believe that on the great principles of the law relating to trade unions there was the perplexity which had been referred to. There was doubtless a variety of views among eminent lawyers on questions not immediately raised by the statutes relating to trade unions, but which came in collaterally, and which had had the effect of procuring apparently divergent decisions upon sets of facts closely resembling one another. He agreed as to the desirability of having a code of trade union law. Criminal law and the law relating to Bills of Exchange had been codified, but neither came nearly so close to the daily life of great masses of the people as the law with regard to combination and the law which governed employers and employed in their mutual relations. This Bill did not profess to codify the law. It introduced privileges for one of the strongest bodies, if not the strongest organised body, in the country, and the question the House had to consider was whether it was proper that organisations guided by men of ability such as was shown in this House by the Labour Members, possessing millions of members, millions of annual revenue, and millions of invested funds, should be placed in a position of privilege by a decision of this House. The Bill not only gave exceptional privileges: it gave them to one of the most strongly organised bodies in the country.

It was because this Bill made that proposal that he could not vote for it. It was said that the Taff Vale case was a great disappointment. He did not think it surprised many lawyers except on the question of procedure. If a number of persons combined to cause damage to others the law declared that the whole of those persons and their funds would be held liable. When it was said there was disappointment, he would invite attention to both the Majority and Minority Reports of the Royal Commission of 1869. Both Reports stated, with regard to the Bill then proposed, that it ought not to affect the liability of every person to be sued in respect of any damage or loss which might have been occasioned to any other person through any act or default of the person sued. That was a very clear enunciation of the principle which must underlie the law of every civilised country. If, contrary to the law, a man or a body of men caused damage to others, then to the extent of their means they must pay for it. To provide by legislation that the trade unions of this country should be put outside the operation of that principle, which was at the foundation of all civilised law, was a denial in respect of trade unionists of an elementary duty of citizenship. But he did not admit that there was this disappointment that had been spoken of. What was felt with regard to trade unions in the period before 1900 was rather that they were fortunate in being protected from legal procedure by difficulties which spring from the law as to procedure in civil actions where an uncertain body were the defendants, but there was no law which forbade their liability if their funds could be reached. Another ground of complaint was set forth in a circular which the organised textile workers had sent to hon. Members. It was argued that the law affected masters and workmen unequally, that masters might close their works in order to influence disputes in other works, that they might black-list workmen and ruin them. [An HON MEMBER: But they do.] Perhaps so, but did the hon. Member think they ought? He did not think so, and therefore he could not assent to a Bill the second section of which would authorise the very thing which the textile workers resented, and which hon. Members opposite agreed was abominable and wicked. The hon. Member for Durham and the hon. Member for Clitheroe appeared to think that blacklisting was indulged in, but he should like to hear of a case.

MR. JOHN WILSON

said he remembered a case where three directors were brought to the Bar of the House for intimidating a witness, and they were reprimanded by the predecessor of the present Speaker. That was a concrete case.

*MR. DUKE

said he regretted that the House had not a convenient prison for such persons. He agreed that such things should not be done, but he would point out that the second section of the Bill would authorise them. Hon. Members opposite contended that masters and men should be placed on an equal footing. Were the workers to be authorised to do wicked things because it was said that some employers did them? He would rather bring them both into a proper state of subordination to the law. If it were the fact that masters combined to damage workmen, such combination was as obnoxious to the principle laid down in "Quinn v. Leathem" as any of the acts reprehended in the judgment in that case. Let hon. Members consider the effect of the successive clauses in this Bill, and the object of them. The first clause of the Bill would override the principle laid down in "Lyons v. Wilkins," the second clause would override that laid down in "Quinn v. Leathem," and the third clause that in the Taff Vale case. "Lyons v. Wilkins' laid down the principle that an arbitrary power might not be assumed of closing a man's business because there was a trade dispute connected with his business. Many of them might say that when a man did what they disapproved that man's business ought to be stopped, and might withhold their custom and tell their friends of the fact, but to put in the hands of organised powers like the trades unions the authority at their will to stop the business of a malcontent employer would be to place the trades unions in a state of sovereignty which no king had ever enjoyed with the consent of the English people. [An HON. MEMBER: The employers enjoy it.] Even if his seat in the House depended upon it, he would never allow anybody except the Legislature to close a man's business or prevent him from following his calling because in some dispute about methods of business or rules of labour they thought that man was wrong.

When picketing was spoken of by hon. Gentlemen and in the Bill as a right to attend for purposes of peaceable persuasion they used a mere form of words. The real question was whether it was to be in the power of a trade union to say to a malcontent workman, "You shall not work except upon our terms." All the talk about only two men attending at a time, or two men waiting on a pier for an Irish steamer, was beside the mark. He would remind hon. Members of Carlyle's example of the mode in which law operated. "The Judge says to a man, 'You shall be hanged.' He goes peacefully away and the executioner puts his hand upon him and he submits to death." That was because law prevailed. It was because of the wish that the edicts of trade unions, even benevolent, even useful edicts, should have the effect of law on men who were not their own members, that it was desired to picket their houses and that there should be attendance of people with authority to persuade them peacefully not to do what it was not thought by the unions that they should do. Peaceful persuasion was a powerful thing, but persuasion by the pacific exercise of power was a much greater thing; and it was the exercise of power which was sought to be legalised by the first section. He saw no mode of amending the section to bring it into harmony with what the law ought to be. The second section would simply legalise boycotting. He did not believe in boycotting in the sister island, and he did not believe in it here. As to the third clause, when twenty or thirty thousand pounds worth of damage was done by means unquestionably illegal, and by the organised action of a powerful trade union, it was a denial of justice and a preposterous proposition to say that only an agent who could pay a farthing in the pound could be sued. The great resources of a trade union could not be made available for the strengthening of the trade in its conflicts with employers and at the same time be protected from ill consequences of a wrong committed by the organisation. Trade unions ought not to be allowed to undertake great actions and wield great forces to give effect to them, with their great resources, without rendering those resources liable, when they were proved to be wrong, to be applied in remedying the wrong they had inflicted. He was sure that was a sound proposition. He could not see how this Bill would do what was sought to be done on the other side without legalising and sanctioning injustice. If hon. Members opposite simply wished to amend the law so that those who had the control of trade disputes should have a stronger inducement than they had now not to go beyond the proper scope of their authority he would heartily support any such measure. The Bill did nothing of the kind. Its tendency was in the opposite direction. Nor did the Bill seek to exclude sick and benefit funds from the area of conflict. The trades unions could themselves protect these funds if they desired to do so. It had been said that these funds, swelled as they were by the sick and benefit contributions, were the means of giving confidence to the trades unions. He believed they were, and if he were a trades unionist he should sympathise with the view of the hon. Member for Durham. But they could not expect to keep large funds available for fighting trade disputes, and then claim legal protection from any ill consequences which might occur. He had been reluctantly brought to the conclusion that he was bound to vote against the Bill, because it infringed the principle that every Englishman should dispose of his labour as well as his goods according to his will, subject to the control of the laws of the country.

Amendment proposed— To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Sir Thomas Wrightson.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

*MR. ATHERLEY-JONES (Durham, N. W.)

said he would endeavour to confine himself in the few observations he proposed to make to the remarks of his hon. and learned friend opposite, because on him had fallen the onus of dealing with what he might term the legal difficulties of the position. He recognised that it was conceded on both sides of the House that the condition of the law with regard to trade unions and combinations by workmen was unsatisfactory; in his judgment it was intolerable, and he thought he should be able to make perfectly clear his reasons for that conclusion. His hon. and learned friend started by saving that the Bill was so badly drawn that it was incapable of amendment. He himself was not prepared to defend the terms of the Bill. It was only fair and just that a Member who rose to speak in favour of a measure before the House should make perfectly clear his general views in relation thereto, and he conceived that in respect of particular provisions of this measure there was large scope for amendment. But that did not weigh on his mind in the vote that he should give. He should vote in favour of the Bill because, with all due deference to his hon. and learned friend opposite, he thought it could be amended. He saw no difficulty whatever in the Committee of the House or the Committee on Law dealing with the Bill on such lines as to render it conformable to the general principles of our law, and at the same time satisfy the legitimate grievances of trades unionists.

It was a strong expression to say that the state of the law as it at present stood was intolerable, but he thought he could substantiate that. The position of trades unions, having regard to recent decisions, was worse than it was before the Act of 1871. Before that Act was passed a trade union was what might be termed an outlaw. Its members were liable to prosecution for engaging in a criminal conspiracy. It had no right to sue and no right to be sued. They could not make it answerable in its funds; in other words, it was not recognised in a Court of justice, except in so far as its members could be proceeded against criminally. That was the state of the law before 1870. The Legislature then came in and passed a statute whereby it said, "We legalise you; you shall be permitted to possess and administer funds; you shall be permitted to bring and sustain actions to protect your funds; and, apart from that, certain things which you do in combination or restraint of trade shall not be illegal." Under that statute trade unions for a considerable time, without let or hindrance from the Judicature of the country, except when and in so far as they transgressed the criminal law, proceeded to carry out their legitimate combinations in restraint of trade. Then, at a late stage in the history of trades unions, the civil courts, invoked by the employers, stepped in and said, "You, trade unions, shall be responsible in your funds for the wrongful acts of your agents." His hon. and learned friend the Member for Plymouth said, "Why should not a trade union be responsible in respect of its acts, exactly like any other organisation." His answer was that a trade union was, in itself, an anomaly so far as the law of the country was concerned. The law said, "You are an illegal combination; but we will make you a legal combination." Then the Courts of justice stepped in and prevented this combination, legalised by Act of Parliament, from carrying out its operations in the only way in which a trade union could carry out its operations. That was his answer to his hon. and learned friend; and he pressed this upon the Attorney-General. They did not ask, as his hon. and learned friend had suggested, that trade unions should enjoy absolute immunity. What they did ask was that, inasmuch as they could only carry on their operations in restraint of trade by the combined action of their members in withdrawing their members from employment, and so bringing pressure to bear on the employers of labour, they should not be responsible if they did not, by their authoritative councils or governing bodies, authorise or ratify illegal acts. That was not, he agreed, in the Bill as it stood. But they were voting on a general principle or proposition which could be brought into line in Committee with what the trade unions desired. He concurred with his hon. and learned friend that the Bill went further than that, but in Committee it could be limited as he had suggested, so that trade unions should be liable for wrongful acts when they expressly authorised these wrongful acts.

His hon. and learned friend went on to deal with the case as put by the decision in "Lyons v. Wilkins." What "Lyons v. Wilkins" decided was that it was not lawful for members of a trade union to attend at or near a place of employment in order to persuade workmen to give their legal notice, or to persuade persons who proposed to become workmen from entering into employment. Now, he contended, there was nothing illegal in advising a man not to enter into a contract; and neither was there anything illegal in advising a man to terminate a contract by legal notice. He thought everybody in that House must agree to that proposition. His hon. friend said that that was coercion; that that was stopping a man from carrying on his business. It was nothing of the kind. It was no more stopping an employer from carrying on his business than certain shipowners stopped others from carrying on their business in the Mogul case. What the workman did, in the case of "Lyons v.Wilkins," was what the workman was clearly entitled to do in his own interests, and what the trade union was entitled to do in the interest of its members. What the trade union said was, "We advise you not to enter into a certain employment, or to leave it at the termination of the legal notice." The immediate purpose was not to stop a business, but to help the workmen, and that was perfectly legitimate.

MR. DUKE

said that the deciding question in that case was whether the object of the trade union was to stop a man's business.

*MR. ATHERLEY-JONES

begged his hon. friend's pardon. The decision in that case was founded on this—although there were dicta of the Judges on other points—that picketing under the statute was only protected for the purpose of "communicating" and "obtaining" information; and it was because, in that case, that had been exceeded—in other words, the men had given advice—that the decision was given. So long as picketing was confined to communicating information it was legal. Mr. Justice Stirling, in the Charnock case, decided that "picketing" could only be legal if confined to obtaining and communicating information. Now what did they, the promoters of this Bill, ask? They asked that it should be lawful for a workman or a trade union or a number of workmen to advise people to do something in their own interest which did not involve the perpetration of a wrong on another person. Why should that not be permissible? They said, and said justly, with all due deference to the Judges who had decided the case alluded to, that those Judges did, to a certain extent, press the law against the trade unions in a way that they should not have done, and which had not been done in other cases of a cognate character but not affecting trade unions. His hon. and learned friend said that that would result in violence; but he was sure that the promoters of the Bill were perfectly free to consider words which would prevent any tumultuous assembly—that was to say, that there should not be a larger number than three or four persons attending at the place of business. As had already been pointed out, it was perfectly competent for the law at present to stop a tumultuous assembly. But here was a case with which his hon. and learned friend had never dealt. At Fleetwood two or three workmen attended at a landing stage to persuade other workmen not to enter into a contract with certain employers; and a Court of law held that that was illegal. He asked the Attorney-General whether that decision could be justified on the lines taken by his hon. and learned friend. Those who were in favour of the Bill under discussion did not wish to impinge in the smallest degree on the decision in the case "Quinn v. Leathem." All they wanted to say was that it was monstrous and intolerable that a trade union should be held responsible for some foolish, inconsiderate, or malicious action on the part of an unauthorised member.

After the decision of the House of Lords in the Taff Vale case, everybody connected with trade unions believed that the position of trade unions was far more perilous than it had been for the last thirty years. If the present position held, it was impossible for a trade union, as such, to use the only means in its hands to bring legitimate pressure to bear upon an employer by persuading workmen to terminate their employment or not to enter into employment. The promoters of the Bill contended that such action was, in the spirit of the law of the land, perfectly legitimate and justifiable, and, therefore, with some modifying words, they were in favour of a measure on those lines. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment that the Bill should be read a second time six months hence said that a Royal Commission was sitting on this subject. But how long was that Commission going to sit? The question specially dealt with in the Bill before the House was ab- solutely familiar to every lawyer in the House, and one which the Attorney-General knew root and branch. Were they to wait for legislation on a matter jeopardising the funds of trade unions until they had the decision of a Commission which did not enjoy the sympathy and confidence of the working clasess? He submitted that they were entitled to receive from the Government an authoritative declaration as to what course they proposed to take to remedy a state of things which he had no hesitation in saying was intolerable.

*MR. RANDLES (Cumberland, Cockermouth)

said he had to confess that he could not controvert the legal arguments of the hon. Gentleman who had seconded the Motion, but he quite agreed with the mover that this was a question which required to be settled. For years past he had voted in favour of some such settlement as was provided in the Bill now before the House. He had had considerable experience in the operations of trade unions, and he must confess that he had found, by endeavouring to work in sympathy with them, that employers of labour derived very great advantage from them. By means of trade unions questions which seemed almost incapable of solution had been satisfactorily settled and great economies effected in the carrying on of large industrial concerns. A very large proportion of the industrial population believed rightly or wrongly that they had been placed in an intolerable position by the Taff Vale decision, and he felt that some steps should be taken towards making an effectual and effective settlement of the questions in dispute. He regretted greatly that the trade unions did not see their way to fall in with the proceedings of the Royal Commission; but that was all the more reason why Parliament should not disregard the wishes of a large proportion of the industrial population of the country. He supported the Bill on general grounds, without regard to details, as for instance on peaceful picketing. If the suggestion of the Member for North West Durham were adopted to limit the picket to two or three persons——

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES

Yes.

MR. RANDLES

This would meet a great objection to the Bill. He believed that legislation would do no violence to the interests of the employers, and would promote permanent good will and peace, upon which the country's prosperity depended, among all classes of the community. He would vote for the Second Reading.

*SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON (Preston)

said it was with very great regret that he found the Bill framed in such a way that he did not feel himself able to give it his support. He had a great many trade unionists in his constituency, and they had pressed him very much to support the Bill. He wished that he could have done so; but the reason why he could not give his consent to the Second Reading was the extent of the powers conferred by Clause 1 on persons concerned in a labour dispute. He was very desirous of seeing all proper powers given to trade unionists to enable them to carry on the work which, within limits, had been most beneficial to the workers of the country; but he was not prepared to put trade unions and still less unauthorised groups of persons above the law, and that was distinctly what Clause 1 did, especially if it were read in connection with Clause 3. Trade unions and even unorganised bodies were, simply because they contemplated a dispute, to have privileges which the law did not allow to private individuals. It was proposed that because a trade dispute was in contemplation or in progress, certain other persons should be deprived of the ordinary protection of the law of the land and of his remedy for what was described in law as a nuisance. A man might find his house surrounded by a crowd; and when he called on the police he would be informed that the police could not interfere because a trade dispute was in contemplation or in progress. Here they were face to face with a provision not for improving the condition of the employed, but for diminishing the ordinary liberty of the individual. Therefore, he could not vote for the Second Reading of the Bill.

He wished the Report of the Royal Commission had been published, and he also wished that the Commission had been differently constituted, because he agreed that there were great legal and practical difficulties connected with the administration of the law in its present state. He wished the House could have some authoritative statement which would enable it to deal with what the hon. Member for Mid.-Durham admitted was a very difficult and intricate matter. He would suggest that a possible mode of dealing with the Bill would be to refer it to some Committee which could ascertain the facts; then they would have a better chance of legislating so as to meet the present difficulty and give satisfaction all round. He did not think it was much in the interest of workmen generally that groups or bodies of persons should be allowed to organise picketing altogether relieved from responsibility for their acts. The House ought to be careful how it interfered with trade at the present time. Trade was not too prosperous. He himself felt appalled at the increase in the number of the unemployed; and he could not help feeling that it was partly due to ill-considered demands on the part of workmen which tended to drive industries into foreign countries. Capital and the brains to carry on business were now very cosmopolitan. If there was an opening in this country for men of capital or genius, then business would come here; but if they imposed unnecessary difficulties capital and genius would fly to other countries. Therefore, they ought to be very careful regarding the regulations and alterations they made in matters connected with the trade and industry of the country. He quite agreed that they had much to gain by well regulated trade unions; but if the law were extended so as to enable unauthorised and unregulated persons to interfere with the course of trade the result might be to drive into other countries commercial undertakings which this country would otherwise retain with great advantage to all concerned.

MR. ASQUITH (Fifeshire, E.)

said he would only trespass on the time of the House for a few minutes, because the arguments for the Second Reading had been so ably stated in the admirable speech of his hon. friend the Member for the Spen Valley, that it was impossible to develop them without danger of repetition. Speaking for himself and all those on the bench behind him, he wished to say that they would cordially support the Second Reading. Every speaker, so far as he could ascertain, had paid a dialectical homage to the principle of combination. They were all agreed now, whatever might have been the case thirty or fifty years ago, that the right of combination on the part of workmen, which used to be regarded as a dangerous or revolutionary licence, was essential to the due regulation of the trade of the country and to a system of equitable relations between labour and capital. When they looked back on the state of things which prevailed before the legalisation of trade unions and compared it with the state of things which happily existed to-day, he thought it did not admit of argument that there had been, in the first place, a great diminution in the number, and, secondly, a great civilising and humanising in the methods of industrial conflicts. What was more important than either, while they had through the recognition of what was called collective bargaining much greater security for the economic liberty of the workman than could have been possible when he was left as a mere isolated individual to make his own contract with his employer, they had at the same time introduced by a recognition of the practice of combination a sense of responsibility and of statesmanship in the conduct of industrial relations which was of equal value to employer and employed.

For two reasons it appeared to him that legislation was now not only expedient but necessary. They were both founded upon the same set of facts—namely, the recent course of judicial decisions. He would remind the House of what was said by two of the most eminent lawyers this country had ever known, who happened to sit on opposite sides in politics—the late Lord Cairns and the late Sir George Jessel—when the Bills of 1871 and 1875 were under the consideration of Parliament. Lord Cairns, speaking in the House of Lords, said that the principle on which the Bill was framed was that offences ill relation to trade disputes should be thoroughly known and understood and that the trade unions should not be subjected to the intricate and deluding action of the law of conspiracy. Sir George Jessel, speaking in the House of Commons, said that if they simply abolished combinations and left the matter to be dealt with by the common law, they would transfer that accurate definition of crime which ought to be the province of legislation to the judges, and they would leave a whole class in utter uncertainty as to what their duties and obligations were. The working classes wished to see offences, whatever they might be, accurately defined. Founding himself on those two statements of two great lawyers, he ventured to say that the very evil which they both contemplated and deprecated was the evil from which we were suffering now in consequence of these recent decisions. The law which Parliament intended was now interpreted in a totally different sense—he would not say wrongly, for of course he bowed with the utmost deference to the decisions of the highest tribunals of the country—from that which was intended by the judges of the day. He thought he might fairly appeal to his hon. and learned friends, on whichever side they sat, to say whether, even at this moment, if they had to pass a carefully set examination in the application of the law of conspiracy and the law of agency to trade disputes there was any one of them who would feel any confidence that he would pass. Certainly, for himself, he professed his complete inability to reconcile by any form of language he could devise, however vague and elastic, the conflicting and warring dicta of the judges of the land. That was the first reason.

The second reason for legislation was equally cogent. It was that, whatever they might think of the justice or the injustice of these decisions as interpreting the intentions of the Legislature or the meaning of the common law, undoubtedly they had had the effect, and would have the effect, of seriously encroaching on the legitimate exercise of the right of combination. Take only one case, that of "Lyons v. Wilkins." There was no doubt that it had enormously circumscribed what everybody had hitherto regarded as the natural and normal activity of trade combination in bona fide industrial disputes. Therefore on both grounds it appeared to him that the time had come when, without waiting for the Report of the Royal Commission, because this Bill only dealt in a modest way with one branch of the matter, the House of Commons might properly be asked to initiate legislation to deal with a pressing grievance.

What were the provisions of the Bill? The first clause affected the limits within which the practice of picketing should be legitimate. He was not using a language of exaggeration when he said that if such a decision as that in "Lyons v. Wilkins" was carried into effect it rendered picketing a perfectly nugatory and impossible industrial weapon. He was not going to defend abuses. He was quite sensible of the danger there was, when picketing was resorted to, of its degenerating from a legitimate weapon into something in the nature of coercion. No trade unionist he had come across failed to recognise that there was a boundary line between that which was legitimate and that which was illegitimate, and no one who was responsible for the framing of the Bill wished, either directly or indirectly, to give any countenance to the exercise of intimidation or coercion; but undoubtedly the effect of the construction put on the Act of 1875 was that unless picketing was used for the purpose for which he ventured to say it never could be exclusively used—for the purpose merely of communication—it became absolutely illegitimate and the foundation for a civil action. Human nature being what it was and social customs being what they were, it was difficult to suppose that when a workman or a couple of workmen were delegated by a trade union to perform this function during a strike, they could ever confine themselves to the communication of information only. Why should they? Why should they not have the power, without violating the law, and without exposing themselves, or, what was more important, the funds of their union, to civil proceedings—why should they not have the power of peaceable and legitimate persuasion? It was absolutely pedantic to say that any human being, constituted as he was, in a matter in which he was seriously interested and in which he was endeavouring to bring about a certain result, was to be confined to the bare communication of facts and not to be allowed to draw inferences from them unless he was prepared to face an action at law. Unless they were prepared to prohibit picketing altogether they must allow the legitimate exercise of the right of picketing to include, not merely the communication of information, but also peaceful persuasion.

The second clause of the Bill provided that— An agreement or combination by two or more persons to do or procure to be done any act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute shall not be ground for an action if such act when committed by one person would not be ground for an action. What was the objection to that? He did not know what it was. Did the House realise that in 1875 the Legislature provided that such an agreement should not be punishable as a criminal conspiracy if the act was committed by one person? This clause only sought to remove the liability to civil procedure where the Legislature removed the liability to criminal proceedings thirty years ago. It might be said this was a mere academic change. It was not anything of the kind. This additional protection was required in order really to carry out what was, undoubtedly, the intention of the Legislature in 1875.

There only remained the third clause, which provided for the protection of trade union funds. He entirely agreed with the purpose of the clause, but he was not satisfied that this was the best mode of accomplishing it. Until the decision of the House of Lords, in what was called the Taff Vale case, no human being ever thought the funds of trade unions could be made liable in this way. He believed it was the intention of the Legislature in 1871, and again in 1875, that the funds of trade unions should not be made liable for any such purpose. If they had had the intention to make them liable the simplest way of giving legislative effect to it would have been to have incorporated it in the Acts; but the Legislature refrained from doing so. The real evil to be guarded against, which had been accentuated and intensified by this decision of the House of Lords, was that the funds of a union might be made liable for the acts of persons who were really irresponsible agents, though their agency might be attributed to the union. If they could once get such a limitation of the law of agency as would protect the union, and, therefore, its funds, from the acts of those who were not definitely authorised to bind it, he believed the result of the decision in the Taff Vale case would almost entirely disappear. What was the best mode of arriving at this result was pre-eminently a matter for discussion in Committee; but there was no reason whatever, although he disagreed with the mode proposed, why he should refuse his assent to the Second Reading of this clause as well as of the rest of the Bill. He had now explained to the House why it was that, taking the Bill as a whole, he heartily supported the Second Reading. With reference to what fell from the hon. Baronet opposite, he should strongly deprecate referring the Bill to a Select Committee with the object of taking evidence. There was no new evidence to be taken. All the principles which ought to determine the way in which they should deal with the facts were known, and ought to be either accepted or rejected; and to refer the Bill to a Select Committee would be nothing more nor less than to consign it to slow and certain death.

SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON

said he had no intention of that kind. He only desired that all the facts should be clearly ascertained.

MR. ASQUITH

said he did not impute any such intention to the hon. Gentleman, but that would be the effect of his proposal. That there were difficulties no one would dispute; but what were the new facts to be ascertained? What he would suggest, and he hoped the suggestion would be accepted by the Government and the great majority of hon. Gentlemen, was that the House should give the Bill a Second Reading, and that it should then be referred to one of the Standing Committees, which would be the proper tribunal when they were dealing with a measure which was not a matter of Party controversy, the general principle of which the vast majority of the House favoured and which required that adequate and more or less informal dis- cussion which was to be got in a Committee upstairs better than on the floor of the House. He earnestly hoped the House would give a unanimous vote in favour of the Second Reading.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)

said that one of the most gratifying features of the debate had been the recognition by Members on both sides of the House of the great and good work done by trade unions. The hon. Member or Mid.-Durham and his hon. friend the Member for St. Pancras both agreed in stating most emphatically that they regarded the relations between masters and men as having been substantially improved by the stability and prosperity of the trade unions. If that was agreed in all parts of the House, he thought he might say that this debate had not been thrown away.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife had said that in former days combinations were unduly restrained. He fully agreed with that; but he thought they should take care that, while in former days combinations of workmen were inequitably suppressed, they did not rush into the opposite extreme and exempt such combinations from the operation of the general law of the country. The right hon. Gentleman had said that there was difficulty and obscurity about the law, and he suggested that hon. Members would find difficulty in passing an examination in it. He agreed that the views of examiners on points of that kind might differ; but he did not think that his right hon. friend and he, if they talked the matter over properly, would very much differ as to what the law was. He was unable to concur with the view so generally expressed that there was such great confusion in this branch of the law. With that view, in 1903 a strong Royal Commission had been appointed, the head of which was the present Lord Justice General, then the Secretary for Scotland, and which was otherwise composed of Mr. Cohen, K.C., Sir Godfrey Lushington, Sir William Lewis, and Mr. Sidney Webb. It had been hoped that Mr. Webb would have been accepted as entirely representing the views of those who were interested in labour questions ["No"]—well, the Government had had some reason for expecting that he would—but it turned out that the trade unions did not recognise the composition of this Commission as satisfactory to themselves. History sometimes repeated itself. The trade unions resolved not to give their assistance to the Commission which sat in 1874; and if that Commission had ceased when the trade unions declined to give assistance the country would have been the poorer by a most admirable Report and the legislation which ensued. The present Commission had concluded their hearing of the evidence. They were now engaged on the work of preparing their Report, which he hoped might be in their possession by the month of May next. Surely if it were the case, as had been so emphatically stated on the other side, and by none more emphatically than by his right hon. friend the Member for East Fife, that the law was in confusion and wanted clearing up, it was in the last degree rash to rush into legislation without waiting to see what so very strong a Commission was able to report on it.

He cordially joined in the compliments which had been paid to the speech of the hon. Member for Spen Valley, who had moved the Second Reading of this Bill. He listened to that speech with the deepest interest—and to no part of it with more interest than that dealing with Clause 3, which purported to do away with the Taff Vale decision. That clause was far more important than the other two put together, and if it were carried the trade unions might feel that they had effectively got everything they wanted. The hon. Member, in approaching that clause, admitted that prima facie it seemed an unreasonable thing to confer on trade unions an exemption which was not enjoyed by any other body of men in the United Kingdom. The reasonableness of that remark must be apparent to every one on both sides of the House. The reason the hon. Member gave for adopting the clause, notwithstanding its apparent unreasonableness, was one of the strangest reasons he had ever heard. It was that, even if this were legislation of an objectionable character, in former days there had been class legislation in the interests of the employer. He dared say there had been; but was that any reason for having class legislation in the interest of the labourer?

*MR. WHITTAKER

said that he did not give this as a reason for supporting this particular clause. He was then speaking of the Bill as a whole and dealing with the argument of those who said they objected to special legislation for labour. His suggestion was that that came very strangely from those in whose interest there had been so much special legislation in the past.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

thought that, on referring to the reports of his speech, the hon. Member would see that he made the observation with regard to the third clause, and as a reason for adopting a proposal which seemed unreasonable. Was it, or was it not, unreasonable? A wrongful act was done by the directors of a powerful body. The immediate agents in doing that wrongful act were workmen who could not pay any damages to the persons injured; and the proposal was that the body which directed the doing of that act should be exempted from all liability; and they were actually told that the person injured ought to be satisfied with the liability of the individual workmen, who were simply the agents of an association. He submitted that the misgivings which the hon. Member for Spen Valley evidently felt when he was attempting to convince the House were amply justified, and he was not surprised that not even his ability was able to drive away the gloomy doubts which had risen in his mind. One of the most valuable contributions to the debate was the statement of the hon. Member for Mid.-Durham that he did not object to a trade union being made liable for any wrongful act the commission of which it had authorised. That was the state of the law at present.

*MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid.)

said he thought where an unlawful act had been committed, if the executive committee of a trade organisation or the general council gave the instructions, there was no reason why they should not be held responsible.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said he had known the hon. Member for many years, and what he had said now was in keeping with everything he had known of him. That was not, however, in this third clause, and he trusted the hon. Member would individually feel it to be his duty to vote against that clause.

*MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid)

said he thought the law as it was interpreted would make a union responsible for the acts of an irresponsible person.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

No; the third clause, about which he feared there was some misconception, was— An action shall not be brought against a trade union or other association aforesaid for the recovery of damage sustained by any person or persons by reason of the action of a member or members of such trade union or other association aforesaid. If that clause passed it would exempt a trade union from liability for the acts which the members of the association had authorised. [Cries of "No."] There was not a lawyer in the House who would get up and say that was not the effect of the clause. He noticed an expression of emphatic assent to that statement from those capable of forming an opinion. The object of this clause was to exempt trade unions from the operation of what was the law of the land. Was that a reasonable proposal? The hon. Member for Mid.-Durham seemed to think that legislation would be required to exempt trade unions from liability for an act which they had not authorised. No such legislation was required. The liability of a trade union proceeded entirely from the fact that the act complained of was done by their authority. Last year a case was quoted, he thought by his hon. and learned friend the Member for Dumfries, in which the Judge of first instance had held that the trade union was not liable. It was taken to the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal held that the trade union was liable on the ground that there was sufficient evidence that the trade union had authorised the act that was complained of. A case was decided the other day—the case of "Airey v. Weighill"—where the Court of Appeal decided, on February 10th, as reported in The Times of February 11th, that the trade union in that particular case was not liable because they did not authorise the act which was complained of. He would read the concluding sentence of the judgment of the Master of the Rolls— The plaintiff had failed to satisfy the burden which lay upon him of showing any authority either of the lodge or of the union. The application would, therefore, be allowed, and judgment entered for the union. That was simply the general law of the land.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES

said that was the act of a lodge official. Would the union have been liable or not if the act had been committed by a principal officer of the union?

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said it was no use entangling the House in details as to particular cases. The broad principle was perfectly clear that the union was not liable unless the act was done by its authority. Of course the authority of a trades union, like that of any corporation, might be derived in various ways, by express resolution, by the rules authorising some act to be done, by word of mouth from the governing body, or there might be circumstances giving a clear indication that the union in fact authorised the act to be done. What was this substituted proposal which was hinted at by his right hon. and learned friend the Member for East Fife? He said he could not support the clause as it stood, but would look forward to amending it in Committee, by showing that it would apply only to an act not authorised by the trade union. It was proposed to alter the present law and enact that a trade union should not be liable unless a resolution in terms authorised the act complained of. It was perfectly manifest that would be introducing an exemption in favour of a trade union that did not exist in regard to any other body. What would be the result? There never would be a resolution; everything would be done by word of mouth, and the association would enjoy an entire immunity because authority had not been given by resolution. He confessed that after hearing the subject discussed on three or four occasions in the House of Commons he had never been able to understand why trade unions had not adopted a simple and effective remedy which lay in their hands, that of separating the fund used for fighting purposes from the fund available for sick pay and provident purposes. They did not do this, and year after year the House was asked to remove a grievance which, so far as it existed, was created wholly by refusal to adopt a course which would remove that grievance.

He had dealt with the third clause first because it was the most important clause in the Bill, and before he left it he desired to make one other observation with regard to it. It had been said again and again that it was the clear intention of the Legislature in 1871 that trade unions should not be liable, but he ventured to say that hon. Members might read the debates upon that measure from end to end without finding a single expression that sustained that view. There were many references to preventing actions, but those actions were by members against societies or societies against members. But there was nothing in the Act, nor so far as he could find in the debates upon the Bill before it became law, which tended to show that that was the intention of those who were responsible for the passing of that Act. He was contrained, therefore, to enter a word of protest against the statement continually made in this discussion that the decision in the Taff Vale case was in distinct violation of the expressed intention of the Act.

MR. ASQUITH

said it was not expressed.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said he had no intuition in the matter; he could only get at the intention from what was said.

The second clause of the Bill came next in point of importance after the third. The first clause was of some importance, the second of more importance, and the third of capital importance. The second clause was as follows— An agreement or combination by two or more persons to do or procure to be done any act in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute shall not be ground for an action, if such act when committed by one person would not be ground for an action. In support of that clause it was said that parties in the case of trade disputes were exempted from criminal proceedings for conspiracy by combination, and that was true; but he failed to see, if a wrong was done to an individual by parties entering into combination, why, if there appeared ground for action at common law, the aggrieved person should be deprived of the means of redress. He could not help thinking that what had been said was perfectly true, that the clause, if passed, would be used for such purposes as those which caused an Irish name to become almost a household word throughout the country; it would legalise what was known as "boycotting," a practice which had been generally reprobated. He earnestly asked the House to consider whether it was desirable to move in this direction in reference to combinations. Was it not matter for very serious consideration, in view of the formation of those great commercial combinations known as trusts, whether the movement should not be rather in the other direction? If the clause should be passed because it would help trade unions, it might operate in a manner trade unionists would not like in favour of employers. This was a point hon. Members interested in labour matters should consider. He recognised the justice of everything that had been said as to the assistance the House derived from the presence of Labour representatives, but he asked them seriously to consider whether it might not be a little shortsighted and to their disadvantage to run a risk of this kind.

The first clause the hon. Member for Spen Valley dealt with with great ability, but his earnest appeal to the House was not really in support of the clause, it was upon a totally different matter. In the Act of 1875 there was an exemption from the criminal liability that was imposed for various acts, among others "watching and besetting," when such was for the purpose of obtaining or communicating information, and if the proposal in the Bill had been merely to insert the words "or for peaceable persuasion" the hon. Member could have made out a very strong case indeed in favour of his contention.; but that was not the proposal or anything like it. Peaceful persuasion in itself did not incur any liability. The question which arose here was whether in any case arising out of that "peaceful persuasion." which the Act of 1875 called "watching and besetting," the right of action given where premises were watched and beset should be taken away. It was forgotten that in the case "Lyons v. Wilkins" it was contended that there was a nuisance at common law. But this clause would legalise watching and besetting, even though it amounted to a nuisance. The hon. and learned Member for Dumfries shook his head, but he had been doing that for three years. When this effect of the clause had been pointed out, why was it year after year introduced in the same form?

SIR ROBERT REID

said he really did not think it mattered.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

asked why it was not made clear. He had a strong impression that, if the hon. and learned Gentleman expressed the view that there should be no exemption from liability if the watching amounted to a nuisance, his colleagues would not accept it. He could not understand the idea of bringing a clause in the same form year after year unless there was something in the particular form. He had not concealed from the House his personal view, and he should vote against the Bill; but at the same time recognising that, as the Prime Minister said last year, a practice had grown up of regarding the Second Reading of private Bills as more in the nature of an abstract Resolution which had the support of hon. Members than as a stage in legislation. Hon. Members on that side who found themselves able to do so might if they pleased vote for the Second Reading; but personally he should vote against it. He hoped that the desirability of legislation proceeding on the Report of the Royal Commission which was appointed in June, 1904, might be recognised. What hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted was a definition of the law. They said the law was difficult to understand and they wanted it clearly stated. But this Bill did not propose clearly to state the law. It did nothing of the kind. It did not define the law; it was a measure to put trade unions above the law. The first clause, as he read it, would exempt them from the common law of nuisance; the second clause would exempt them from the common law of conspiracy; and the third clause would exempt them from the liability of action which every other person and corporation

in the United Kingdom was exposed to. He desired to see trade unions go on and prosper, but he did not desire that they should enjoy the great authority which this Bill would confer upon them.

Mr. WHITTAKER

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

*MR. SPEAKER

As this Bill has passed the Second Reading after discussion on a previous occasion in the present Parliament, and has now been discussed again, I think the hon. Member is entitled to have an opportunity of ascertaining whether the House now approves of it, and is disposed to send it to a Standing or other Committee as suggested.

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided; Ayes, 244; Noes, 123. (Division List No. 38.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. Burke, E. Haviland Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Burns, John Delany, William
Allen, Charles P. Buxton, Sydney Charles Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway
Asher, Alexander Caldwell, James Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Cameron, Robert Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Atherley-Jones, L. Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Dobbie, Joseph
Bain, Colonel James Robert Cautley, Henry Strother Doogan, P. C.
Barlow, John Emmott Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.) Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)
Barrar, Rowland Hirst Cawley, Frederick Duffy, William J.
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Cayzer, Sir Charles William Duke, Henry Edward
Barry, Sir Francis T(Windsor) Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton Duncan, J. Hastings
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Channing, Francis Allston Dunn, Sir William
Bell, Richard Cheetham, John Frederick Edwards, Frank
Benn, John Williams Churchill, Winston Spencer Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas
Black, Alexander William Clarcy, John Joseph Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)
Blake, Edward Condon, Thomas Joseph Emmott, Alfred
Boland, John Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) Esmonde, Sir Thomas
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Crean, Eugene Eve, Harry Trelawney
Brigg, John Cremer, William Randal Farrell, James Patrick
Bright, Allan Heywood Crombie, John William Fenwick, Charles
Broadhurst, Henry Crooks, William Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Cullinan, J. Field, William
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Dalziel, James Henry Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Fisher, William Hayes
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond M'Kenna, Reginald Schwann, Charles E.
Flynn, James Christopher M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin Shackleton, David James
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Markham, Arthur Basil Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N. Sheehy, David
Furness, Sir Christopher Mooney, John J. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Gilhooly, James Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Goddard, Daniel Ford Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Moss, Samuel Slack, John Bamford
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Monlton, John Fletcher Sloan, Thomas Henry
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Murphy, John Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil Nannetti, Joseph P. Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Harmsworth, R. Leicester Newnes, Sir George Soares, Ernest J.
Harrington, Timothy Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Spencer, Rt Hn. CR. (Northants.)
Harwood, George Norman, Henry Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. Norton, Capt. Cecil William Stanhope, Hn. Philip James
Hayden, John Patrick Nussey, Thomas Willans Strachey, Sir Edward
Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D. O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Sullivan, Donal
Healy, Timothy Michael O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Helme, Norval Watson O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Tennant, Harold John
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) O'Connor, James (Wicklow. W. Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Higham, John Sharpe O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower)
Holland, Sir William Henry O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.
Hope, J F (Sheffield, Brightside) O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) Tillett, Louis John
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) O'Dowd, John Tomkinson, James
Horniman, Frederick John O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Toulmin, George
Hozier, Hon.James Henry Gecil O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Ure, Alexander
Jacoby, James Alfred Parrott, William Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Johnson, John Partington, Oswald Wallace, Robert
Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea Panlton, James Mellor Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Jones, Leif (Appleby) Pemberton, John S. G. Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Pirie, Duncan V. Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Joyce, Michael Power, Patrick Joseph Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W Priestley, Arthur Webb, Colonel William George
Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh Randles, John S. Weir, James Galloway
Kilbride, Denis Rea, Russell White, George (Norfolk)
Labouchere, Henry Reddy, M. White, Luke (York, E. R.
Lambert, George Redmond, John E. (Waterford) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries Whiteley George (York, W. R.)
Lamont, Norman Richards, Thomas (WMonm'th Whiteley, H. (Ashton undLyne
Langley, Batty Rickett, J. Compton Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Layland-Barratt, Francis Roberts, John H. (Denbighs) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth
Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Wills, Arthur Walters (NDorset
Leigh, Sir Joseph Robson, William Snowdon Wills, Sir Frederick (Bristol, N.)
Levy, Maurice Roche, John Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.
Lewis, John Herbert Roe, Sir Thomas Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Lloyd-George, David Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Lough, Thomas Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert Woodhouse, Sir J T (Hnddersf'd
Lundon, W. Rose, Charles Day Young, Samuel
Lyell, Charles Henry Runciman, Walter Yoxall, James Henry
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Russell, T. W.
Mac Veagh, Jeremiah Rutherford, John (Lancashire TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr
M'Crae, George Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Herbert Gladstone and Mr
M'Hugh, Patrick A. Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Causton.
M'Kean, John Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. Bignold, Sir Arthur Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)
Allsopp, Hon. George Blundell, Colonel Henry Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge
Anson, Sir William Reynell Campbell, Rt. Hn J. A. (Glasgow Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim. S.)
Arrol, Sir William Carsop, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H. Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Cubitt, Hon. Henry
Baird, John George Alexander Coghill, Douglas Harry Dalrymple, Sir Charles
Balcarres, Lord Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Dewar, Sir T R.(Tower Hamlets
Banner, John S. Harmood- Colomb, Rt Hn. Sir John C. R. Dickson, Charles Scott
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon
Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E. Kerr, John Reid, James (Greenock)
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Kimber, Sir Henry Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Knowles, Sir Lees Ridley, S. Forde
Fardell, Sir T. George Laurie, Lieut.-General Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield.)
Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th) Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.
Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Man'cr. Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Round, Rt. Hon. James
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N R Royds, Clement Molyneux
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Sharpe, William Edward T.
Flower, Sir Ernest Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew
Forster, Henry William Llewellyn, Evan Henry Simeon, Sir Barrington
Foster, PhilipS (Warwick, S. W.) Lockwood, Lieut-Col. A. R. Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ
Galloway, William Johnson Lonsdale, John Brownlee Thorburn, Sir Walter
Garfit William, Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth) Tollemache, Henry James
Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. Macdona, John Cumming Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Gordon, Hn. J E(Elgin & Nairn) MacIvor, David (Liverpool) Tuff, Charles
Goulding, Edward Alfred Maconochie, A. W. Tuke, Sir John Batty
Greene, Sir E W (B'rySEdm'nds M'Calmont, Colonel James Turnour, Viscount
Greville, Hon. Ronald Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire Valentia, Viscount
Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F. Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Warde, Colonel C. E.
Hamilton, Marq. of (L'ndnd'ry Moore, William Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton
Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford) Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Hare, Thomas Leigh Mount, William Arthur Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Heath, Sir J. (Staffords. N. W. Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.
Helder, Augustus Nicholson, William Graham Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Hickman, Sir Alfred Percy, Earl Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart
Hoare, Sir Samuel Pilkington, Colonel Richard
Hornby, Sir William Henry Platt-Higgins, Frederick TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Hoult, Joseph Plummer, Sir Walter R. Thomas Wrightson and
Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Sir Frederick Banbury.
Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W. Rankin, Sir. James

Question put accordingly, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes, 248; Noes, 151. (Division List No. 39.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. Causton, Richard Knight Edwards, Frank
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Cautley, Henry Strother Ellice, Capt E. C (SAndrew'sBghs.
Allen, Charles P. Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas
Ambrose, Robert Cawley, Frederick Ellis, John Edward (Notts)
Asher, Alexander Cayzer, Sir Charles William Emmott, Alfred
Ashton, Thomas Gair Chamberlayne, T. S'thampton Esmonde, Sir Thomas
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Channing, Francis Allston Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)
Atherley-Jones, L. Cheetham, John Frederick Eve, Harry Trelawney
Bain, Colonel James Robert Churchill, Winston Spencer Farrell, James Patrick
Barlow, John Emmott Clancy, John Joseph Fenwick, Charles
Barran, Rowland Hirst Condon, Thomas Joseph Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) Field, William
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B Crean, Eugene Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)
Bell, Richard Cremer, William Randal Fisher, William Hayes
Benn, John Williams Crombie, John William Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond
Black, Alexander William Crooks, William Flynn, James Christopher
Blake, Edward Cross, Alexander (Glasgo W) Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)
Boland, John Cullinan, J. Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Dalziel, James Henry Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.
Brigg, John Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Furness, Sir Christopher
Bright, Allan Heywood Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan) Gilhooly, James
Broadhurst, Henry Delany, William Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Goddard, Daniel Ford
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill
Burke, E. Haviland Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Burns, John Dobbie, Joseph Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil
Buxton, Sydney Charles Doogan, P. C. Harmsworth, R. Leicester
Caldwell, James Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark) Harrington, Timothy
Cameron, Robert Duffy, William J. Harwood, George
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Duncan, J. Hastings Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Dunn, Sir William Hayden, John Patrick
Hayter, Rt. Hn Sir Arthur D. Moulton, John Fletcher Shackleton, David James
Healy, Timothy Michael Murphy, John Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Helme, Norval Watson Nannetti, Joseph P. Sheehy, David
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Newnes, Sir George Shipman, Dr. John G
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Higham, John Sharpe Norman, Henry Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) Norton, Capt. Cecil William Slack, John Bamford
Holland, Sir William Henry Nussey, Thomas Willans Sloan, Thomas Henry
Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.) Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Horniman, Frederick John O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Soares, Ernest J.
Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Spencer, Rt. Hn C R (Northants.
Jacoby, James Alfred O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. Spencer, Sir F. (W. Bromwich)
Johnson, John O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Joicey, Sir James O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Strachey, Sir Edward
Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea) O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) Sullivan, Donal
Jones, Leif (Appleby) O'Dowd, John Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Tennant, Harold John
Joyce, Michael O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.
Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W O'Malley, William Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Kenyon, Hon. Geo T. (Denbigh O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower
Kilbride, Denis Parrott, William Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.
Labouchere, Henry Partington, Oswald Tillett, Louis John
Lambert, George Paulton, James Mellor Tomkinson, James
Lambton Hn. Frederick Wm. Pemberton, John S. G. Toulmin, George
Lamont, Norman Pirie, Duncan V. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Langley, Batty Power, Patrick Joseph Ure, Alexander
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Corn wall) Priestley, Arthur Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Layland-Barratt, Francis Randles John S. Wallace, Robert
Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington) Rea, Russell Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Leigh, Sir Joseph Reddy, M. Warner, Thomas Gourtenay T.
Levy, Maurice Redmond, John E. (Waterford Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Lewis, John Herbert Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)
Lloyd-George, David Richards, Thomas (W Monm'th Webb, Colonel William George
Lough, Thomas Rickett, J. Compton Weir, James Galloway
Lundon W. Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) White, George (Norfolk)
Lyell, Charles Henry Roberts, John H. (Denbighs. White, Luke (York, E. R.
Macdona, John Cumming Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Robson, William Snowdon Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah Roche, John Whiteley, H. (Ashton undLyne)
M'Crae, George Roe, Sir Thomas Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
M'Hugh, Patrick A. Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
M'Kean, John Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset
M'Kenna, Reginald Rose, Charles Day Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.
M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Runciman, Walter Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin Russell, T. W. Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd
Markham, Arthur Basil Rutherford, John (Lancashire Young, Samuel
Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.) Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Yoxall, James Henry
Mooney, John J. Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Moutrose Schwann, Charles E. Whittaker and Mr. John
Moss, Samuel Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight Wilson (Durham).
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F Bill, Charles Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Bingham, Lord Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.
Allsopp, Hon. George. Blundell, Colonel Harry Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile
Anson, Sir William Reynell Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow Cubitt, Hon. Henry
Arrol, Sir William Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Dalrymple, Sir Charles
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt, Hon. Sir H Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Dickson, Charles Scott
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wor. Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.
Baird, John George Alexander Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon
Balcarres, Lord Clive, Captain Percy A. Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r. Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Douglas, Rt, Hon A. Akers
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds) Coghill, Douglas Harry Doxford, Sir William Theodore
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John CR. Fardell, Sir T. George
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.
Bignold, Sir Arthur Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Finch, Rt Hon. George H. Laurie, Lieut.-General Ridley, S. Forde
Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Flower, Sir Ernest Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Round, Rt. Hon. James
Forster, Henry William Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R Royds, Clement Molyneux
Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W. Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Galloway, William Johnson Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Sharpe, William Edward T.
Garfit, William Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)
Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. Llewellyn, Evan Henry Simeon, Sir Barrington
Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ.
Goulding, Edward Alfred Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S Thorburn, Sir Walter
Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds Lonsdale, John Brownlee Thornton, Percy M.
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th. Tollemache, Henry James
Greville, Hon. Ronald Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. MacIver, David (Liverpool) Tuff, Charles
Hamilton, Marq, of (L'nd'nd'ry Maconochie, A. W. Tuke, Sir John Batty
Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford M'Calmont, Colonel James Turnour, Viscount
Hare, Thomas Leigh Maxwell, WJH (Dumfriesshire Valentia, Viscount
Heath, Sir James (Staffords, NW Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H
Helder, Augustus Moore, William Warde, Colonel C. E.
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Welby, Lt.-Col. A. CE (Taunton
Hickman, Sir Alfred Mount, William Arthur Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Hoare, Sir Samuel Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset
Hornby, Sir William Henry Nicholson, William Graham Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley Wills, Sir Frederick (Bristol. N
Hoult, Joseph Percy, Earl Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)
Hozier, Hn.-James Henry Cecil Pilkington, Colonel Richard Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred Platt-Higgins, Frederick Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Plummer, Sir Walter R. Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Kennaway, Rt Hn. Sir John H. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W. Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Kerr, John Rankin, Sir James TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Keswick, William Ratcliff, R. F. Thomas Wrightson and Mr.
Kimnber, Sir Henry Reid, James (Greenock) Duke.
Knowlea, Sir Lees Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Main Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 252; Noes, 130.(Division List No. 40.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.) Cameron Robert Doogan, P. C.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Doughty, Sir George
Allen, Charles P. Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)
Ambrose Robert Causton, Richard Knight Duffy, William J.
Asher, Alexander Cautley, Henry Strother Duncan, J. Hastings
Ashton, Thomas Gair Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Dunn, Sir William
Asquith, Rt Hon. Herbert Henry Cawley, Frederick Edwards, Frank
Atherley-Jones, L. Cayzer, Sir Charles William Ellice, Capt. EC (S. Andrw's Bghs
Bain, Colonel James Robert Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas
Barlow, John Emmott Channing, Francis Allston Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)
Barran, Rowland Hirst Cheetham, John Frederick Esmonde, Sir Thomas
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Churchill, Winston Spencer Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Clancy, John Joseph Eve. Harry Trelawney
Bell, Richard Condon, Thomas Joseph Farrell, James Patrick
Benn, John Williams Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) Fenwick, Charles
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Crean, Eugene Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)
Black, Alexander William Cremer, William Randal Field, William
Blake, Edward Crombie, John William Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE
Boland, John Crooks, William Fisher, William Hayes
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond
Brigg, John Cullinan, J. Flynn, James Christoper
Bright, Allan Heywood Dalziel, James Henry Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)
Broadhurst, Henry Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Delany, William Furness, Sir Christopher
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Gilhooly, James
Burke, E. Haviland Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John
Burns, John Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) Goddard, Daniel Ford
Buxton, Sydney Charles Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Caldwell, James Dobbie, Joseph Guest, Hon, Ivor Churchill
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Mitchell, Edw. Fermanagh, N.) Schwann, Charles E.
Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Mooney, John J. Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
Harmsworth, R. Liecester Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Seely, Maj. J. E. B (Isle of Wight
Harrington, Timothy Morley, Rt Hon. John (Montrose Shackleton, David James
Harwood, George Moss, Samuel Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. Moulton, John Fletcher Sheehy, David
Hayden, John Patrick Murphy, John Shipman, Dr. John G.
Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Nannetti, Joseph P. Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Healy, Timothy Michael Newnes, Sir George Sinclair Louis (Romford)
Helme, Norval Watson Nolan, Joseph (Loath, South) Slack, John Bamford
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Norman, Henry Sloan, Thomas Henry
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Norton, Capt. Cecil William Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Higham, John Sharpe Nussey, Thomas Willans Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Hobhonse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E. O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Soares, Ernest J.
Holland, Sir William Henry O'Brien Kendal (Tipperary Mid Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants
Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Horniman, Frederick John O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) Strachey, Sir Edward
Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Sullivan, Donal
Jacoby, James Alfred O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Johnson, John O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) Tennant, Harold John
Joicey, Sir James O'Dowd, John Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Thomas David Alfred (Merthyr)
Jones, Leif (Appleby) O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N. Thomas, J A(Glamorgan, Gower
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire O'Malley, William Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Joyce, Michael O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Tillett, Louis John
Kearley, Hudson E. Parrott, William Tomkinson, James
Kennedy, Vincent P (Cavan, W. Partington, Oswald Toulmin, George
Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh) Paulton, James Mellor Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Kilbride, Denis Pemherton, John S. G. Ure, Alexander
Knowles, Sir Lees Pirie, Duncan V. Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Labouchere, Henry Power, Patrick Joseph Wallace, Robert
Lambert, George Priestley, Arthur Walton, Joseph, (Barnsley)
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm Randles, John S. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Lamont, Norman Rea, Russell Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Langley, Batty Reckitt, Harold James Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Reddy, M. Webb, Colonel William George
Layland-Barratt, Francis Redmond, John E. (Waterford Weir, James Galloway
Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries White, George (Norfolk)
Leigh, Sir Joseph Richards, Thomas (W Monm'th) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Levy, Maurice Rickett, J. Compton White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Lewis, John Herbert Roberts, John Bryn(Eifion) Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
Lloyd-(George, David Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne
Lough, Thomas Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Lundon, W. Robson, William Snowdon Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Lyell, Charles Henry Roche, John Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset
Macdona, John Cumming Roe, Sir Thomas Wilson, J. W (Worcestersh. N.
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd
Mac Veagh, Jeremiah Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert Young, Samuel
M'Crae, George Rose, Charles Day Yoxall, James Henry
M'Hugh, Patrick A. Runciman, Walter
M'Kean, John Russell, T. W. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
M'Kenna, Reginald Rutherford John (Lancashire) Whittaker and Mr. John
M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Wilson (Durham).
M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Markham, Arthur Basil Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Bignold, Sir Arthur Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Bill, Charles Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)
Allsopp, Hon. George Bingham, Lord Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. Blundell, Colonel Henry Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile
Arrol, Sir William Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.) Cubitt, Hon. Henry
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Glasgow Dalrymple, Sir Charles
Aubrey-Fletcher. Rt. Hn. Sir H. Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Dewar, Sir T. R.(Tower Hamlets
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Dickson, Charles Scott
Balcarres, Lord Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Clive, Captain Percy A. Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Coghill, Douglas Harry Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Doxford, Sir William Theodore
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton
Fardell, Sir T. George Keswick, William Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Kimber, Sir Henry Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Laurie, Lieut.-General Round, Rt. Hon. James
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Royds, Clement Molyneux
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Lawrence Sir Joseph (Monm'th) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Fison, Frederick William Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Sharpe, William Edward T.
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose Lawson, JohnGrant (Yorks N. R) Shaw-Stewart, Sir H (Renfrew)
Forster, Henry William Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead. Simeon, Sir Barrington
Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W. Legge, Col. Hon. Henage Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Galloway, William Johnson Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'dUniv
Garfit, William Llewellyn, Evan Henry Thorburn, Sir Walter
Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A R. Thornton, Percy M.
Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin & Nairn) Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Goulding, Edward Alfred Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth Tuff, Charles
Greene, Sir E W (Bury StEdm'nds Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Tuke, Sir John Batty
Greene, Henry D (Shrewsbury MacIver, David (Liverpool) Turnour, Viscount
Greville, Hon. Ronald Maconochie, A. W. Valentia, Viscount
Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x Maxwell, W J. H. (Dumfriesshire Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Tannton
Hamilton, Marq. Of (L'nd'nderry Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford Moore, William Willough by de Eresby, Lord
Heath, Sir James (Staffords., N W Morton, Arthur H. Alymer Wills, Sir Frederick (Bristol, N.)
Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford W. Nicholson, William Graham Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley Wilson-Todd, Sir W H (Yorks.)
Hickman, Sir Alfred Pilkington, Colonel Richard Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E R (Bath)
Hornby, Sir William Henry Platt-Higgins, Frederick Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Plummer, Sir Walter R. Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Hoult, Joseph Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart
Hozier, Hon James Henry Cecil Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Ratcliff, R. F. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Kennaway, Rt. Hon Sir John H. Reid, James (Greenock) Sir Thomas Wrightson and
Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W. Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine Mr. Duke.
Kerr, John Ridley, S. Forde

Bill read a second time.

MR. WHITTAKER

moved the committal of the Bill to the Standing Committee on Law.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc."—(Mr. Whittaker.)

*SIR THOMAS WRIGHTSON

moved to substitute "a Select Committee of Fifteen Members" for "the Standing Committee on Law."

Amendment proposed— To leave out the words 'the Standing Committee on Law, etc.,' and insert the words 'a Select Committee of Fifteen Members.'"—(Sir Thomas Wrightson.)

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

SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N. E.)

said that as a member of the Chairman's Panel he wished to express his doubt whether this was a Bill which ought to be referred to a Standing Committee. These Committees were intended to facilitate the passage of Bills which were practically agreed in principle, but the details of which required careful consideration. The Aliens Bill of last session was referred to a Grand Committee, but no progress could be made with it, and it had eventually to be withdrawn. Other instances could be quoted in which Bills evoking strong opposition had been referred to a Standing Committees with equally unsatisfactory results. He was afraid the Grand Committees would break down or fail in their usefulness should Bills of a controversial character be referred to them, and he earnestly advised the House not to refer this Bill in the manner proposed.

MR. HARDY (Kent, Ashford)

expressed his surprise that, after the protests made on the other side of the House last session with regard to the Aliens Bill, it should now be proposed to refer this Bill to a Standing Committee. He did not believe that any Chairman of a Grand Committee would say that this was a measure which ought to be so referred. It was a much more contentious Bill than the Aliens Bill. Referring to another measure last year, when objecting to its committal to a Grand Committee, the Leader of the Opposition said that not only was it bitterly opposed and resented by a large body of Members but it also introduced a new constitutional practice and principle. Those words applied very aptly to the present measure, and he hoped the House would support the Amendment.

COLONEL PILKINGTON (Lancashire, Newton)

said the course of the debate had shown that there was very little agreement in any part of the House with reference to this Bill. Not only had a larger number voted against it than voted against the Aliens Bill, but no two speakers had agreed as to any one clause. The mover admitted that the matter was one of great difficulty; the hon. Member for Mid.-Durham was not satisfied with the picketing clauses; the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife disagreed with previous speeches.

MR. EUGENE WASON (Clackmannan and Kinross)

rising to a point of order, asked whether the hon. Member was entitled to make a Second Reading speech on this Motion.

MR. SPEAKER

said the hon. Member was not entitled, under guise of showing that this was a contentious measure, to discuss all the different opinions which had been expressed in the debate. He was entitled to argue that as the debate had shown differences of opinion, the Bill ought not to go to a Grand Committee, but he would not be in order in examining the individual arguments used.

COLONEL PILKINGTON

wished to argue that a Select Committee was a more competent body than a Grand Committee to deal with this Bill. Much more information was required before the Bill could be properly dealt with, and that information could be given better before a Select Committee than before the Grand Committee on Law. There was no hurry about the matter, and he submitted that the existing confusion of mind and division of opinion could be best sifted by a Select Committee.

Question put.

House divided:—Ayes, 247; Noes, 142. (Division List No. 41.)

AYES
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Barran, Rowland Hirst Bright, Allan Heywood
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Broadhurst, Henry
Allen, Charles P. Bell, Richard Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)
Ambrose, Robert Benn, John Williams Bryce, Rt. Hon. James
Asher, Alexander Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn
Ashton, Thomas Gair Black, Alexander William Burke, E. Haviland
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Blake, Edward Burns, John
Atherley-Jones, L. Boland, John Buxton, Sydney Charles
Bain, Colonel James Robert Bolton, Thomas Dolling Caldwell, James
Barlow, John Emmott Brigg, John Cameron, Robert
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Reckitt, Harold James
Carvil, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Jacoby, James Alfred Reddy, M.
Causton, Richard Knight Johnson, John Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Joicey, Sir James Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries
Cawley, Frederick Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Jones, Leif (Appleby) Rickett, J. Compton
Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Channing, Francis Allston Joyce, Michael Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Cheetham, John Frederick Kearley, Hudson E. Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Clancy, John Joseph Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George Robson, William Snowdon
Condon, Thomas Joseph Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W. Roche, John
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh) Roe, Sir Thomas
Crean, Eugene Kilbride, Denis Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Cremer, William Randal Labouchere, Henry Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Crombie, John William Lambert, George Rose, Charles Day
Crooks, William Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Runciman, Walter
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Lamont, Norman Russell, T. W.
Cullinan, J. Langley, Batty Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Dalziel, James Henry Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan Layland-Barratt, Francis Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Delany, William Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Schwann, Charles E.
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Leigh, Sir Joseph Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) Levy, Maurice Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Lewis, Joln Herbert Shackleton, David James
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Lloyd-George, David Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Dobbie, Joseph Lough, Thomas Sheehy, David
Doogan, P. C. Lundon, W. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Doughty, Sir George Lyell, Charles Henry Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Macdona, John Cumming S ack, John Bamford
Duffy, William J. Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Sloan, Thomas Henry
Duncan, J. Hastings MacVeagh, Jeremiah Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Dunn, Sir William M'Crae, George Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Edwards, Frank M'Hugh, Patrick A. Soares, Ernest J.
Ellice, Capt E C (S. Andrw's Bghs M'Kean, John Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants
Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) M'Kenna, Reginald Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Esmonde, Sir Thomas M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Strachey, Sir Edward
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjam n Sullivan, Donal
Eve, Harry Trelawney Markham, Arthur Basil Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Farrell, James Patrick Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. Tennant, Harold John
Fenvick, Charles Mitchell, Edw. Fermanagh, N. Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Mooney, John J. Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Field, William Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Thomas,J A (Glamorgan,Gower
Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E Moss, Samuel Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Fisher, William Hayes Moulton, John Fletcher Tillett, Louis John
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Murphy, John Tomkinson, James
Flynn, James Christopher Nannetti, Joseph P. Toulmin, George
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Newnes, Sir George Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Ure, Alexander
Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. Norman, Henry Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Furness, Sir Christopher Norton, Capt. Cecil William Wallace, Robert
Gilhooly, James Nussey, Thomas Willans Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) O Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney)
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill O Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N. Webb, Col. Wm. George
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. O Connor, James (Wicklow, W Weir, James Galloway
Hardie,J.Keir (Merthyr Tydvil O Connor, John (Kildare, N.) White, George (Norfolk)
Harmsworth, R. Leicester O Connor, T. P. (Liverpool White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Harrington, Timothy O Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Harwood, George O Dowd, John Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne
Hayden, John Patrick O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. O'Malley, William Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Healy, Timothy Michael O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset
Helder, Augustus Parrott, William Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Helme, Norval Watson Partington, Oswald Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Paulton, James Mellor Young, Samuel
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Pemberton, John S. G. Yoxall, James Henry
Higham, John Sharpe Pirie, Duncan, V.
Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E. Power, Patrick Joseph TELLEKS FOR THE AYES—
Holland, Sir William Henry Priestley, Arthur Mr. Whittaker and Mr.
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Randles, John S. John Wilson (Durham).
Horniman, Frederick John Rea, Russell
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs Moore, William
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Fison, Frederick William Morgan David J. (Walthamstow
Allsopp, Hon. George Forster, Henry William Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Anson, Sir William Reynell Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W. Nicholson, William Graham
Arrol, Sir William Galloway, William Johnson Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Garfit, William Pilkington, Colonel Richard
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Baird, John George Alexander Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn) Plummer, Sir Walter R.
Balcarres, Lord Goulding, Edward Alfred Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Balfour,Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds Graham, Henry Robert Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Greene, Sir E W (B'rySEdm'nds Rankin, Sir James
Beach,Rt.Hn Sir Michael Hicks Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Reid, James (Greenock)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Grenfell, William Henry Remnant, James Farquharson
Bigwood, James Greville, Hon. Ronald Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Bill, Charles Halsey, R. Hon. Thomas F. Ridley, S. Forde
Bingham, Lord Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G.(Midd'x Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Heath Sir James (Staffords, N W Round, Rt. Hon. James
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.) Royds, Clement Molyneux
Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.) Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow Hickman, Sir Alfred Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Carson, R. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hornby, Sir William Henry Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cautley, Henry Strother Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Shaw-Stewart Sir H.(Renfrew)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Hoult, Joseph Simeon, Sir Barrington
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Clive, Captain Percy A. Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W. Thorburn, Sir Walter
Coghill, Douglas Harry Kerr, John Thornton, Percy M.
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Keswick, William Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Kimber, Sir Henry Turf, Charles
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas King, Sir Henry Seymour Tuke, Sir John Batty
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Knowles, Sir Lees Valentia, Viscount
Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S. Laurie, Lieut. -General Welby, Lt. -Col. A. C. E (Taunton
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Lawson, John Grant(Yorks, N. R Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Davenpot, William Bromley Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Wills, Sir Frederick (Bristol, N.)
Dickson, Charles Scott Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C. Llewellyn, Evan Henry Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Lockwood, Lieut. -Col. A. R. Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E. Lonsdale, John Brownlee Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Lucas Reginald J.(Portsmouth) Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart
Duke, Henry Edward MacIver, David (Liverpool) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Maconochie, A. W. Sir Thomas Wrightson and
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r Maseey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. Sir Frederick Banbury.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

Main Question again proposed.

And, it being after half-past Five of the clock, and objection being taken to further proceeding, Mr. Speaker proceeded to interrupt the Business.

Whereupon Mr. WHITTAKER rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."

Question proposed, "That the Question be now put."

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)

pointed out that the hon. Member did not claim the Main Question until after Mr. Speaker had put the Question from the Chair.

*MR. SPEAKER

said he put the Question from the Chair and if no one had objected it would have gone through. But as an hon. Member rose to continue the debate I was about to interrupt the business, and the closure could be moved.

Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc.

Forward to