Commons Sitting of 3 August 1906

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Gilesgate, against; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; From Ipswich; and, Nottingham; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES TAXATION, & c, (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  SOUTH AFRICA (CONSTITUTION OF THE TRANSVAAL AND ORANGE RIVER COLONIES).
  Petition, from Cape Colony, for enfranchisement of the coloured races; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888.
  Copy presented, of Orders made by the various County Councils in England and Wales under Section 57 of the Act, as confirmed by the Local Government Board [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES ACT, 1890.
  Copy presented, of Statement of Modification permitted by the Local Government Board to be made in the Leeds (Housing of Working Classes) Order, 1901, and in the London (Aylesbury Place, Clerkenwell, and Union Buildings, Holborn) Improvement Scheme, 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  MOTOR CAR ACTS.
  Copy presented, of Regulations made under the Acts; I. Kingston-upon-Thames; II. St. Albans; III. Horsham; IV. Torquay; V. Southport [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS.
  Copy presented, of Report of Proceedings by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland,
  1580
  under the Diseases of Animals Acts, for the year 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented of Calender of the Manuscripts of the Marquess of Salisbury preserved at Hatfield House, Herts. Part XI. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  WINTER ASSIZES ACTS, 1876 AND 1877.
  Copy presented, of Seven Orders in Council of July 28th, 1906, relating to the ensuing Winter Assizes [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Copies presented, of two Orders in Council of July 28th, 1906, entitled the Brunei Order in Council, 1906, and the Nigeria Coinage Order, 1906 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL ACT, 1865.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of July 28th, 1906, approving the appointment of a Receiver and Agent for the Greenwich Estate and a revision of the Salary of the officer supervising the start of Instructors and Servants at the Royal Hospital School, Greenwich [by Act]; to lie upon the Table,
  COLONIAL PROBATES ACT, 1892.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of July 28th, 1906, applying certain provisions of The Colonial Probates Act, 1892, to Southern Rhodesia [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (NATIVE STATES UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL OF POLITICAL AGENTS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 1st August Mr. Morton]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 317.)
  NAVY (COURTS MARTIAL)
  Copy presented, of Return of the Number of Courts Martial held and Summary Punishments inflicted during the year 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  NAVY (HEALTH).
  Copy presented, of Statistical Report of the Health of the Navy for the year

  1581
  1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 318.)
  CASUALITIES TO SHIPS ON THE NAVY LIST.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 1st May; Mr. Bellairs]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 319.)

  STATISTICAL ABSTRACT (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  Copy presented, of Statistical Abstract for the principal and other Foreign Countries in each year from 1894 to 1903–4 (Thirty - second Number) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOILER EXPLOSIONS ACTS 1882 AND 1890.
  Copy presented, of Report to the Secretary of the Board of Trade upon the working of the Boiler Explosions Acts, 1882 and 1890, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894 (VESSELS DETAINED).
  Copy presented, of Return of all ships ordered by the Board of Trade or its Officers during the period from July 1st, 1905, to June 30th, 1906, to be provisionally detained as unsafe together with Summaries, etc. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOSS OF LIFE AT SEA.
  Copy presented, of Return showing the lives lost by Wreck, Drowning, or other accidents in British sea-going Merchant Ships registered in the United Kingdom during the years 1894 to 1905, inclusive [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  WEST INDIAN ISLANDS (EXPORTERS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 31st July; Mr. Essex]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 320.)

  Name of Metropolitan Borough Council.

  Year ended 31st March.

  Bills promoted by the Council.

  Bills opposed by the Council.

  Totals of Columns 4 and 6.

  Titles of Bills.

  Amount of expenses incurred.

  Titles of Bills.

  Amount of expenses incurred.

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  Expenses incurred in opposing Bills promoted by the London County Council being distinguished."—(Mr. Cleland.)

  COAL TABLES, 1905.
  Copy ordered, "of Statistical Tables relating to the production, consumption, and imports and exports of Coal in the British Empire and the principal Foreign Countries in each year from 1883 to 1905, as far as the particulars can be stated; together with Statements showing the production of Lignite and Petroleum in the principal producing countries for a series of years (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 295, of Session.' 1905)."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 321.)

  IRON AND STEEL, 1905.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum and Statistical Tables showing the production and consumption of Iron Ore and Pig Iron, and the production of Steel in the United Kingdom and the principal Foreign Countries in recent years, and the Imports and Exports of certain classes of Iron and Steel Manufactures (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 296, of Session 1905)."—Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 322.)

  MERCHANT SHIPPING, 1905.
  Copy ordered, "of Tables showing the progress of Merchant Shipping in the United Kingdom and the principal Maritime Countries."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 323.)

  METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCILS (BILLS IN PARLIAMENT).
  Return ordered, "of expenses incurred by each Metropolitan Borough Council in: each financial year since the constitution of the Council, in promoting or opposing Bills in Parliament, including Bills to-confirm Provisional Orders, in the following form:—
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD INSPECTORS AND AUDITORS.
  Return ordered, "of all Inspectors and Auditors now in the service of the Local Government Board, showing in respect of each (1) his name, (2) date of appointment, (3) age on appointment, (4) experience of local government or professional qualification previous to appointment, (5) present remuneration, (6) travelling and other expenses in the last financial year."—(Mr. Cooper.)
  LUNATICS.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Lunatics chargeable to each Board of Guardians or Local Authority in London and Middlesex who are not irremovable from or settled therein, and who are natives of Scotland or Ireland."—(Mr. Claude Hay.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Bill; Local Authorities.(Transfer of Treasury Powers) Bill; Public Works Loans Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Act (1898) Amendment Bill, without Amendment.
  Amendments to—Colonial Marriages Bill [Lords]; Buckhaven, Methil, and Innerleven Burgh Extension Bill [Lords]; London Squares and Enclosures Bill [Lords], without Amendments.
  That they request that this House will be pleased to communicate to their Lordships copies of the Reports from the Select Committees appointed by this House in the present session of Parliament on:—1. Education (Provision of Meals) Bill; 2. Cabs and Omnibuses (Metropolis); 3. Official Publications, etc., together with the Proceedings of the Committees and Minutes of Evidence.
  Lords Message, requesting copies of Reports of Select Committees, considered.
  Printed copies to be communicated.

QUESTION'S AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Postal Delivery to Towns on Cambrian Railway.
  MR. REES: To ask the Postmaster-General whether
  1584
  he has arranged, or will arrange, for a second delivery in such towns situated on the Cambrian Railway as are at present without such delivery, and in which such delivery is possible with the existing railway service.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) If the hon. Member will be good enough to give me the names of the places to which he refers I will make inquiry on the subject.

  Lundy Island—Suggested Harbour of Refuge.
  MR. JENKINS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the First Lord of the Admiralty has received a memorial praying that Lundy Island should be purchased, with a view to converting it into a harbour of refuge and a naval base for the protection of the Bristol Channel; and what action he proposes taking in connection therewith.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Such a letter has been received from a Welsh Chamber of Commerce and will be duly considered by the Department. As at present advised, however, the Admiralty have no intention of purchasing Lundy Island.

  Vacant Judgeship in Ireland.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, pending the passing of the Judicature (Ireland) Bill, at present before the House, it is intended to appoint a new Judge in Ireland to fill up the vacancy at present existing; if so, is it intended to do so before the commencement of the autumn session of the House.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have not been able to devote time to the consideration of the subject and have no statement, to make regarding it.

  Chinese Customs Administration.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the assurances given by the Government of China to the British Legation at Peking to the effect that no change would be made in the methods of the administration of Chinese customs have been carried

  1585
  out; and whether the resignation of Sir Robert Hart is due to any failure to carry out such assurances.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) Mr. Carnegie, His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Peking, has informed us of the new instructions to the Inspector General of Customs. They do not appear to be contrary to the assurances given by the Chinese Government, that the actual administration of the Customs will continue as before. But I am inquiring as to whether this has been made quite clear. His Majesty's Government have no reason to believe that the report of the intended resignation of Sir Robert Hart is correct.

  Land Commission Methods.
  MR. DODD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the remarks of Lord Justice Fitzgibbon in the case of Kee versus Doherty, at the Tyrone assizes, with reference to the purchase of the Sinclair Holyhill Estate; whether he is aware that the learned Judge animadverted on the methods of the Land Commission, and described as lamentable that the Land Commission should adopt extraordinary forms, creating confusion and litigation, and whilst anxious about the rights of the landlords should be absolutely silent about the rights of the tenants; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent a repetition of such proceedings.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have seen a newspaper report of the remarks of Lord Justice Fitzgibbon in the case referred to, but have no information whether the Report is accurate. According to this Report the learned Judge commented on the action of the Land Commission in the matter of mineral rights and sporting rights and thought that the turbary and free rights of the tenants had been in this particular instance insufficiently safeguarded. I have not had time since notice of the Question was given, to obtain the observations of the Land Commission on the matter, and it would, therefore, not be right for me to offer any comments on the case. The matter has not escaped their attention, and is being specially
  1586
  inquired into by the Judicial Commissioner. I may, however, say that the Government have no power to interfere with the judicial action of the Land Commission.

  Imprisonment of Men at Buenos Ayres.
  MR. J. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the imprisonment at the Port of Buenos Ayres of Frank Murphy, John White, John Green, Thomas White, and John Macdonald, on the charge of striking and firing stones on a policeman; whether he is aware that the men state they are not guilty of the act and that they have been detained four months in prison awaiting their trial, during which time they have had no beds or change of clothes; and whether, in view of the men's condition he will inquire into their statement that they have written letters to the English Consul but have received no assistance, and seeing that the German, who is a prisoner, communicated with the German Consul, who immediately took steps to see that he was properly provided with clothing and food, whether he will take steps with a view of having the trial of these men expedited.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The matter was brought to my notice on the 31st ultimo, and His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Buenos Ayres was at once instructed by telegraph to make inquiries.

  Seat of Government in Uganda.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact of the sale of Government House at Entebbe, the ravages of sleeping sickness, the insufficiency of the water supply, fever, and the general unsuitability of the district adjoining the lake, he will, before expending public money in the erection of a new Government House, consider the advisability of removing the seat of government, temporarily at any rate, to the Kampala district, where the tsetse fly and sleeping sickness are unknown; and if he will, in view of the importance of the East Africa and Uganda Protectorates, endeavour to pay, himself, a visit to the country.

  1587
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) With regard to the first part of the hon. Member's Question, I would refer him to the reply which I gave to his Question of the 19th July. The Secretary of State is communicating with the Deputy Commissioner of Uganda and Dr. Moffat on the question of the desirability of removing the seat of government in Uganda to Kampala, and when their replies have been received the whole matter will be carefully considered in consultation with the Commissioner. With regard to the second part of the hon. Member's Question, I should particularly desire to pay a visit to the East Africa and Uganda Protectorates if the Secretary of State were to consider that I could be spared from my duties in the House of Commons. But in view of the occurrence of an Autumn Session I fear my wish is hardly likely to be realised this year.

  Agricultural Experiments at Nairobi and Naivasha.
  SIR C. HILL: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the agricultural interest attaching to the records of the experiments in live stock and agriculture at the Government farms at Nairobi and Naivasha, he will lay Reports on them as annexes to the Annual Report by the Commissioner for the East Africa Protectorate for 1905–6.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Commissioner will be asked to furnish the Reports desired, and they will be laid accordingly.

  Secondary and Technical Schools in Scotland.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that the recently issued Report of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland shows that 109 schools undertake secondary and technical education, will he state where these schools are respectively situated, distinguishing higher class public schools from endowed schools and schools under voluntary managers.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) A complete list of the 109 schools referred to in the Report of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland will be found on
  1588
  pages 38 and 39 of the Report on Secondary Education (Scotland) for the year 1905 [Cd. 2793]. Pages 30–37 of the same Report contain statements of the income, expenditure, and liabilities of each of these schools which is in receipt of a grant from the Department. Schools under the management of school boards occupy pages 30–35. Schools, under the management of authorities other than school boards are given on pages 36 and 37.

  Trawling in Moray Firth.
  MR WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state for what period H.M.S. "Ringdove" has patrolled the Moray Firth, the number of cases of illegal trawling reported by her commander, and the number of convictions secured.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) H.M.S. "Ringdove" has patrolled the Moray Firth since 14th February last, but her commander has not reported any cases of illegal trawling since that date.

  Housing Cattle in Crofters' Dwellings in Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that on August 2nd, 1905, the Lewis District Committee issued an order requiring, crofters and others who house cattle in their dwellings to separate the cattle from the living rooms by a substantial partition wall; and will he state in how many instances effect has been given to the order.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I am informed that about 100 houses have been altered in accordance with the terms of the notice referred to by the hon. Member.

  Worsthorne Council School.
  MR. SHACKLETON: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the proposal of the Educational Committee of the Lancashire County Council to close the council school at Worsthorne and to extend a denominational school in the same area; and whether such a proceeding will receive the sanction of the Board of Education.

  1589
  (Answered by Mr. Birrel.) I am not aware of any proposal on the part of the Education Committee of the Lancashire County Council of the nature referred to by the hon. Member, but I may add that so lately as June 2nd last a site was approved by the Board for a new council school.

  Cunard Company Agreement.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the total approximate sum accruing to the Cunard Company for the whole period during which payments are due in respect of the two fast vessels now building, allowing for both the subsidy and for the difference between the rate of interest which the company are paying on £2,600,000 lent by the Government and the approximate rate of interest at which a limited liability company can borrow in the open market.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Under the agreement sanctioned by Resolution of the House of Commons on August 12th, 1903, an annual sum of £150,000 will be payable from Votes to the Cunard Company, subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions. This payment is to run, as to one moiety, from the first sailing of the first of the two fast vessels: as to the second moiety, as from the first sailing of the second vessel; and is to continue for twenty years from the latter of these dates. The sum to be advanced to the company for construction of the two vessels is not to exceed £2,000,000. The sum advanced will be repaid by the company in twenty equal annual instalments, of which the first will be payable one year after the date of the first sailing of the second vessel. The advance will bear interest at 2¾ per cont. per annum, on one moiety, from the date of sailing of the first vessel, on the other moiety from the date of sailing of the second vessel. To enable my hon. friend's Question to be answered it would be necessary to know (1) the amount which the Government will ultimately advance; (2) the dates at which the future instalments of advance will be made; and (3) the rate at which a limited liability company can borrow in the open market. I am not prepared to commit myself to an opinion on the third point, and the other two are still uncertain.

  Alleged Payment of Wages at Public Houses in Cardiff.
  MR. J. H. WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to a complaint made by Mr. George H. Lock, that numbers of men are being paid their wages every Saturday at the Rising Sun Hotel, Cardiff; whether he is aware that the proprietor of the hotel pays the wages for a stevedore of Cardiff; and, seeing that the payment of workmen's wages in a public-house is a broach of the Truck Act, whether he can say what action he will take in the matter, with a view of preventing workmen's wages being paid in public-houses in future.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have called for a report from the Cardiff police on the subject, and am informed that the proprietor of the public-house has been seen and admits that certain men, who were in the habit of frequenting the house, have received their wages there for some time past. It appears, however, from the police report that they were paid by their ganger, and not by the proprietor as stated in the question. The proprietor states that he offered no inducement for the men to be paid at this house, and since his attention was called to the matter at the beginning of last month the practice appears to have ceased. The practice clearly involved a breach of the Payment of Wages in Public-Houses Prohibition Act, 1883. This Act, however, is enforced, not by the Home Office, but by the police, who report that no complaint has been received by them with regard to the matter, but that special attention will be given to the premises in question to prevent any repetition of the offence.

  Education Bill—Clause 4.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether care will be taken to prevent the general application of Sub-section 4 of Clause 4 of the Education Bill, and to confine its operation to those urban areas which are the subject of the offer of extended facilities made by the principal portions of Clause 4.

  1591
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I think there can be no doubt that the sub-section referred to will apply only to schools which fulfil the various conditions of Clause 4.

  Housing Proceedings in Birmingham.
  MR. STEADMAN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been directed to the case of the Birmingham Housing Committee versus John Roderick, in respect of seven houses owned by the latter which had been represented by the medical officer of health under Part II. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, as being in a state so dangerous and injurious to health as to be unfit for human habitation; if he is aware that through several adjournments of this case by the magistrates and their being unable to agree as to the facts of the case, the defendant owner was enabled to evade the proper carrying out of the repairs required by the sanitary authority, and that this action of the magistrates has caused more money to be spent in legal proceedings than would have sufficed to put the houses in a thoroughly sanitary condition; and whether he intends to take any administrative action in the matter or to assist sanitary authorities in their work by legislation.
  (Answered by Mr. John. Burns.) My attention has been directed to a report of the Housing Committee of the Birmingham Town Council with respect to this case, from which it would appear that the facts are substantially as stated in the Question. I have, however, no power to review the proceedings of the justices in such a case, and I do not think I could usefully intervene in the matter.

  Poor Rates—Proportion due for Education.
  MR. REES: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is proposed to so amend the law as to require county and borough councils to inform overseers how much of the demand note for poor rate relates to education; and whether such changes are contemplated in regard to compounding as will enable every ratepayer to know what payment on account of rates is included in payment on account of rent.
  1592
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) Both the matters referred to in the Question appear to me to be deserving of consideration, but I do not contemplate any immediate legislation with regard to them.

  Watford Secondary School—Loans.
  MR. MICKLEM: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Local Government Board have sanctioned the raising of a loan of £10,000 by the Herts County Council for the purpose of erecting a new secondary school at Watford, to be settled upon denominational trusts; if so, whether such sanction was given before the scheme for the new school was approved by the Board of Education; whether the Local Government Board were aware that the county council proposed to charge £5,000, part of the £10,000, on the Watford Urban District; whether any opportunity was afforded to the urban district council to place their views before the Local Government Board; and, in the event of no such opportunity having been afforded, whether the Local Government Board will withdraw their sanction to the loan until after a public inquiry has been held, and the views of the urban district council ascertained.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Local Government Board have sanctioned a loan of £10,000 by the Herts County Council for a contribution towards the cost of providing a secondary school for girls at Watford. I understand that the school is subject to a scheme, that an amending scheme has been proposed, and that a public inquiry has been held by the Board of Education with regard to it, but that it has not yet been settled. The question as to the parishes to be charged with the cost of the school is one for the county council. I did not receive any representations from the Watford Urban District Council on the subject. The loan, as already stated, has been sanctioned, and I am not in a position to take any further action in the matter.

  German Naval Programme.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty to what year's programme the German battleships "Kaiser Barbarossa," "Schwaben," "Wottin," "Preussen," "Braunschweig," and "Deutschland" belong; on what dates

  1593
  were they laid down; on what dates completed; and what time was occupied in building them.

  Name.

  Programme.

  Date Laid Down.

  Date Completed.

  Time occupied in Building.

  Years.

  Months.

  Kaiser Barbarossa

  1898

  August 1898

  May 1901

  2

  9

  Wettin

  1899

  October 1899

  October 1902

  3

  —

  Schwaben

  1900

  November 1903

  December 1900

  3

  1

  Braunschweig

  1901

  October 1901

  September 1904

  2

  11

  Preussen

  1902

  June 1902

  July 1905

  3

  1

  Deutschland

  1903

  May 1903

  June 1906

  3

  1

  British Naval Programme.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty to what year's programmes the battleships "Albion," "Montagu," "Dominion," and "Now Zealand" belong; on what dates were

  Name.

  Programme.

  Date Laid Down.

  Date Completed.

  Time occupied in Building.

  Years.

  Months.

  Albion

  1806–7

  December 1896

  June 1901

  4

  7

  Montagu

  1899–1900

  November 1899

  July 1903

  3

  8

  Dominion

  1901–2

  May 1902

  September 1905

  3

  4

  New Zealand

  1902–3

  February 1902

  July 1905

  2

  5

  Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Acts— Regulations.
  MR. CHANNING: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board, with a view to making the necessary regulations in pursuance of Section 4 of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Bill at the earliest possible date will refer to a committee of experts the determination of the limits of error in respect of the warranties as to percentages to be stated in invoices under the Act, and the consideration of the varying conditions under which home manufactured and foreign imported fertilisers and feeding stuffs have to be placed on the market, both as regards the percentages which can be guaranteed and as regards the
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The following table gives the information desired by the hon. Member—
  they laid down; on what date completed; and what time was occupied in building them.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The following table gives the information (desired by the hon. Member—
  time necessary for handling and for properly sampling these articles; and whether, in framing regulations as to sampling articles under the Act, the Board will make it clear that official samplers may take sample', by order of the local authority or the Board, in districts other than the county or borough for which they are appointed.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) Yes, it is the intention of my noble friend the President of the Board to appoint committees to consider and advise as to the regulations to be made by the Board in pursuance of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuff's Bill. The suggestion made by my hon. friend in the concluding part of his Question will receive our careful consideration.

  The Case of Ex-Inspector M Carthy (Metropolitan Police).
  MR. NOLAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Ex - inspector John M'Carthy, of the Metropolitan Police, on January 28th, 1904, after twenty-two and a-half years' service, was dismissed on the unsworn and uncorroborated statement of a street-betting man named David Curtis; and whether he proposes to take any further steps in the matter, in view of the fact that M'Carthy has sworn that the charge made against him by Curtis is absolutely false.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone): The charges against Inspector M'Carthy were investigated with the utmost care by the Commissioner of Police, who, after giving him every opportunity for his defence,Came to the conclusion that he was guilty and that it was impossible to retain him in the force. This conclusion was fully confirmed by the verdict of a jury in March, 1905, when M'Carthy brought an action for slander against Curtis. Curtis then gave his evidence on oath, and it was supported by the sworn testimony of other witnesses. The jury, after a trial that lasted four days, gave a verdict for defendant, and I have not the slightest doubt that they were right.

  Customs House Quay—Open Space.
  LORD BALCARRES: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now announce his decision in respect of the open space at the Custom House Quay.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The Corporation has been informed that, as the proposed use of the quay for fish market purposes would interfere with the work of the Custom House and also detract from the amenities of the area as an open space, I do not see my way to comply with their request.

  Portmagee—Suggested Appointment of Justice of the Peace.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that although the petty sessions district of Portmagee, county Kerry, consists of the two parishes of Prior and Keelemilah, covering an area of over 80 square miles,
  1596
  and has within it police stations at Ballinskelligs and Portmagee, where petty sessions are hold, there is not a single resilient justice of the peace, and that if a summons has to be signed or a complaint made the person concerned must go a distance of 10 miles; and whether, in view of the fact that the general public are inconvenienced thereby, and that the rural district council has forwarded a resolution on the subject to the Lord Chancellor, steps will he taken to remedy this grievance by the appointment of a resident justice of the peace.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have referred this Question to the Lord Chancellor, who informs me that he is causing inquiries to be made into the matters alleged in the Question. The resolution of the rural district council referred to has only been received within the last few days, and there has not been time to complete the inquiries. The Lord Chancellor informs me that the matter will not be overlooked.

  Bourke Cochran Trust.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Committee of Inquiry into the Department of Agriculture, etc., ruled that the question of the misapplication or loss of the Bourke Cochran trust fund was not within the scope of their inquiry, and has he any reason to suppose that this view will not also be applied to any statement on the subject submitted by Mr. Bourke Cochran's solicitor; was any member of the Department a director of the company which issued the statement in its prospectus that the Sligo Sawmills and Joinery Company, Limited, was launched under the auspices of the Department, and was that statement ever denied or repudiated until after the public had taken shares and lost its money; and will he take steps to have the whole transaction properly investigated, and the loss of the £10,000 given by Mr. Bourke Cochran and the rest of the share capital explained.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I understand that the statement of Mr. Bourke Cochran's solicitor will be considered by the Committee. No member of the Department was a director of the

  1597
  company. The statement in the prospectus, which, as I have already informed the hon. and learned Member, was not made with the authority or knowledge of the Department, was not withdrawn by them. As a matter of fact, the statement did not come under the notice of the Department until long after it was made, and all the money was invested. I see no cause for any such action on the part of the Government as is suggested in the Question.

  Conduct of Councillors Madden and O'Reilly—Dublin Corporation Inquiry.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of the Dublin Corporation on the 11th of last month, when they unanimously adopted Report No. 58 of a Committee of the Whole House, dated 30th March, which met to investigate the conduct of Councillor Anthony Madden, High Sheriff of the city of Dublin, and Councillor Thomas O'Reilly, Deputy Chairman of the Licensed Vintners Dublin Association; whether he is aware that Madden and O'Reilly, acting in collusion, appointed a partner of Maddens named Thomas Murphy, afterwards changed on the minutes of the Improvements Committee to James Murphy, to carry out the work previously done by a Mrs. Malone, and that a sum of £7 15s. had been paid to Murphy before the irregularity of the proceeding had been discovered by the corporate officials; and will he say whether any steps will be taken to remove Councillor Madden, who was chairman of the Paving Committee, from the office of High Sheriff of the city.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have no information concerning the proceedings of the Dublin Corporation in this matter beyond that which may be obtained from the newspaper reports. According to those reports it would appear that the Corporation have taken all steps which may be necessary in the matter, and I am not aware that there are any grounds for taking the action suggested in the latter part of the Question.

  County Armagh Employment of Direct or Contract Labour.
  MR. MCKILLOP: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a sworn
  1598
  inquiry was recently held by an inspector of the Local Government Board in county Armagh with reference to the question of the employment of direct labour or contract labour; and, if so, what decision the Local Government Board have come to on the subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The Local Government Board have not yet received their inspector's report on the matter, and no decision has, therefore, been arrived at.

  Dog Licences in County Down.
  MR. MCKILLOP: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the clerk of the petty sessions of Holyrood, Bangor, and Newtownbreda, county Down, has not made a correct Return of the improperly stamped dog licences; whether the Return of the £4 12s. worth of dog stamps, and their destruction, make complete the stamps purchased and used in reference to all the dogs licensed; whether the clerk returned particulars of licences issued for dogs for which stamps had not been cancelled; whether steps will be taken to obtain particulars of cases of mistake; whether steps have been taken to protect from prosecution the holders of licences, in which more than one dog appears, and for which the proper amount of duty has been paid, but which have been improperly stamped; and whether it is usual in such matters, when irregularities are admitted, to accept the excuse of the clerk concerned without taking steps to ascertain the accuracy of his explanation.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I beg to refer to the very full reply given by the Attorney-General for Ireland to the hon. Members' Question on this subject on 20th June. the registrar of petty sessions clerks informs me that he has satisfied himself, by personal investigation on the spot, that the clerk of petty sessions has correctly accounted for all fees received by him for dog licences. The register of dog licorices shows full particulars of the licences issued, including the number of dogs in each licence, and those have been fully accounted for. No prosecution will be taken against those persons whose

  1599
  licences were insufficiently stamped owing to the accident described in answer to the previous Question.

  Engineer Services—Checking Measurements.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether any and what saving resulted to the public through the visit made by the inspector when checking certified measurements for engineer services in the Southern Command on 30th July; what is the cost to the public for the inspector's salary, travelling, and hotel expenses for this inspection; and if inspection of this sort is effective, will the Secretary of State for War consider the advisability of relieving local officers of the trouble and responsibility connected with measurements, leaving it to the inspector to make and be responsible for all measurements.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) There is no information at the War Office in regard to the inspection mentioned in the Question. There is no intention of relieving local officers of any of their present duties and responsibility.

  YeomanryȔReturn of Discharges.
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that headquarters of Imperial Yeomanry regiments are required to make a weekly return, under Army Form B 2055, being nominal list of permanent staff whose discharges have been confirmed by officers commanding such regiments; and whether, in view of the fact that changes in permanent staff of Imperial Yeomanry regiments are very infrequent, he will save public money and time by causing the returns in question to be made yearly instead of weekly.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) It has been decided that this Return shall only be rendered when a discharge of a member of the permanent staff has taken place. Stops are being taken to carry out this decision.

  Return of Measurements of Recruits.
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the object of
  1600
  the annual Return giving the measurements, etc., of all recruits, whether they pass medical inspection or not, which is made under Army Form B 215.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This Return gives valuable information as to the physical development of the recruit-giving class, and aids the War Office in framing standards for recruits. The information also affords statistics of the general condition, trades and callings of those who offer themselves for enlistment.

  Imperial Yeomanry—(Return as to Recruits).
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can see his way to substitute an annual for a monthly Return of recruits for the Regular Army now made by Imperial Yeomanry regiments, seeing that very few, if any, recruits for the Regular Army apply to Yeomanry headquarters.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane). It is essential that the War Office should be informed monthly of the work done by the permanent staff of the Yeomanry regiments, who are ex officio recruiters. It is hoped that the recruits obtained through this agency will be more numerous in future.

  Imperial Yeomanry—(Return of Expenditure).
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that in Imperial Yeomanry regiments practically no money is expended in travelling claims, and not charged to the annual training grants, he will give instructions for the expenditure Return of such moneys to be made annually instead of quarterly.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Returns of expenditure under Vote 6 are required to be rendered quarterly for the Army at home as a whole, and to render these complete the Returns of the expenditure referred to in the Question are required from the Yeomanry for the same periods.

  Alleged Attack on Connaught Rangers.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed

  1601
  to an occurrence in Donegal on July 24th, when a party of Nationalists attacked a number of men of the Connaught Rangers because they wore wearing the uniform of the British soldier, forced them upon their knees, and compelled thorn to curse the King and the British constitution and promise not to re-enlist in the Army when their term expired; and what action he intends to take to protect the soldiers of the King from such treatment.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) No information has reached the War Office from the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Ireland, as to the alleged occurrence.

  Lancashire Royal Field Artillery Militia —Efficiency in Drill and Shooting.
  MAJOR SEELY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the efficiency in drill and shooting attained by the Lancashire Royal Field Artillery Militia this year, and the Report thereon of the Inspector-General of Horse and Field Artillery; and whether he will consider the advisability of extending this organisation to other parts of the country.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) As regards the first part of the Question the Report of this year's practice has not as yet reached the War Office. As regards the second part of the Question, a scheme for training Artillery Militia in field artillery duties is being prepared.

  Establishment of Rifle Ranges.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Army Estimates provide for contributions towards the establishment of rifle ranges in such centres as are conspicuously suitable for depots of auxiliary forces.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) No contributions towards ranges for auxiliary forces are provided for in the Army Estimates, but the War Department provides rifle ranges for Militia and Yeomanry, either by hiring under Vote 10, or by the use of War Department ranges.

  Public Hospitals and Rates.
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the Prime Minister whether he can see his way, by
  1602
  legislation or otherwise, to secure for all recognised public hospitals complete ' exemption from rates and taxes.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Banner-man.) The Question is one which raises many difficulties, and it will no doubt have to be considered whenever the revision of local taxation is taken up. In the meantime I am not prepared to make any general statement on the subject. I understand that hospitals are already exempt from certain Imperial taxes.

  Description of "Granite" In Admiralty Contracts.
  SIR EDWARD BOYLE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Board of Admiralty will, in all future contracts involving the use of granite, insert before the word granite, the word British; and if not, will he say why this should not be done.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson). I have nothing to add to the reply given on this point to a Question asked by the hon. Member for the Thanet Division of Kent on March 3rd last.

  Treatment of Crew of the "Melville Island."
  MR. J. H. WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the suffering endured by the crew of the sailing ship "Melville Island;" whether he is aware that those men complained of being short of their allowance of food, and that the men were placed on board of the vessel at Melbourne by magistrate's order, which was afterwards sot aside by Mr. Justice Cossen, Judge of the High Courts; and whether, in view of the allegations made against the master that lie had seamen smuggled on board of his ship who had deserted from a Russian vessel, he will cause a Board of Trade inquiry to be held into this matter on the arrival of the "Melville Island" In this country.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Board of Trade have, so far, no information with regard to the case of which my hon. friend refers, but full inquiries shall be made in the matter, and in due course he shall be informed of the result.

  Supply of Jam under Admiralty Contracts.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if, in further contracts for supply of jam, due care and inspection will be provided to see that only pure sound fruit is used.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The existing contract arrangements provide that only pure, sound fruit shall be used in the manufacture of jam for the Admiralty, and the contractors' deliveries are subject to a minute and exhaustive examination by expert officers before they are accepted.
  New Writ for the County of Denbigh (Eastern Division), in the room of Samuel Moss, esquire (Judge of the County Court of Chester and North Wales).—(Mr. Whiteley.)

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  The Army and Political Gatherings.
  MR. MOREELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is open to officers and men in His Majesty's Army to take part in their military capacity in a political entertainment, organised by a political club for party purposes, at which entertainment a charge of 6d. a head is to be made for the benefit of the political club in question; and, if not, whether he will take steps to prevent such a breach of regulations.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): Officers and men are not permitted to participate in entertainments of the kind and under the conditions mentioned, and the particular arrangements to which my hon. friend probably refers have boon cancelled.
  MR. MORRELL: As the engagement referred to in the question was widely advertised will the right hon. Gentleman see that equally public announcements are made of its cancellation?
  MR. HALDANE: I think my Answer to this Question will suffice.

  Leckhampton Hill—Reduction of Sentences on Rioters.
  MR. SEARS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, considering that the petition in the Leckhampton Hill case has been in his hands for eighteen days, and the evidence for over three weeks, that the men, one of whom took no part in the riot, have already suffered four weeks imprisonment, and are condemned to four and six months hard labour, whether he can give his decision thereon, or will he do so before the House rises for the Recess, or when will the decision lie made known, and will he say what is the cause for the delay which is taking place; is he aware that it is intended to test the question of the public right to this Hill in a higher court.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): There has been no avoidable delay in dealing with this petition. The case is an important one presenting many features of difficulty, and it has involved correspondence with the learned Judge and the police, besides the examination of voluminous documents. I am now, however, in a position to make the statement my hon. friend desires. While I agree with the learned Judge in regarding the offence or offences of most of the prisoners as serious, and in considering that substantial punishment was required to safeguard the proper observance of the law, on a full review of all the circumstances I am of opinion that the requirements of the case will be met by less severe sentences than those which were given. I have therefore advised His Majesty that Barrett should be released on this day week, when he will have served six weeks in prison, and that the other men should be released as follows:—Sparrow after two months imprisonment, Williams, Young, Luce, and Wallace after three months, and Ballinger and Heaven after four months.

  London County Council—Expenditure on Bills in Parliament.
  MR. THORNTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will grant, as an unopposed Return, a statement of the expenses incurred by the London County Council in promoting and opposing Bills

  1605
  in Parliament during each of the years 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, and 1906, estimated (in continuation of the House of Lords Return, No. 214, of Session 1903).
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I have no objection to giving a Return on this subject if the hon. Member will move for it. I will communicate with him later in the day as to the form of the Return.

  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will give a detailed Return of all plants sent out to private establishments from the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, for the past five years, with those received in exchange during the same period.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: As I stated in reply to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Enfield on June 27th, † the preparation of such a Return would entail considerable labour and expense without any corresponding advantage, and my noble friend regrets therefore that he does not see his way to grant it.
  † See (4) Debates, clix., 935.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: Then is there no possibility of getting the information asked for?
  [No Answer was returned]

  Blairgowrie Water Storage.
  MR. WILKIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that at the Blairgowrie, Rattray, and District Water Provisional Order inquiry, held in Edinburgh on July 19th and 20th, the Commissioners passed the Order, not only taking water from, but depriving two flax spinning mills in Blairgowrie of their storage for water, without allowing a compensation clause, such as Section 16 of the Newcastle and Gateshead Waterworks Act of 1894, thereby endangering the employment of fifty people, and the prospective employment of about some thirty more; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter.
  † See (4) Debates, clix., 935.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): As my hon. friend is aware, the procedure in connection with Orders under the Scottish Procedure Act of 1899 is statutory, and the Secretary for Scotland is not constituted a Court of Appeal from the decision of Commissioners. I will look into the matter he refers to, but I cannot give any pledge.

  Drumraney (Westmeath) Outrage.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHOn behalf of the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the police have succeeded in discovering the person or persons who fired shots into the dwelling of John Cassell at Drumraney, Westmeath, on June 26th.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): I am informed that the police have made all possible inquiries into this case, but have so far not succeeded in discovering the offender.

  The Connaught Rangers.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on July 24th, near the town of Donegal, a number of men of the Connaught Rangers were set upon by a crowd of Nationalists, who roughly handled them, forced them to kneel and curse the King and the British Constitution, and promise not to re-enlist in the Army at the expiration of their term of service; whether the police know the perpetrators of this outrage; and what action is to be taken in the matter.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the police authorities that two soldiers have reported that on July 24th, near the town of Donegal, they were roughly handled by several men— it would appear not a crowd—but whether these persons were Nationalists or not there is no information. One of the alleged assailants is known, and proceedings are being instituted against him. This being so, it is undesirable that I should enter into the particulars of the case; but, so far as

  1607
  my information goes, there is no foundation for the matters of fact alleged in the Question, beyond the facts which I have already stated.

  Sessiaghoneill Co-operative Stores.
  MR. MCVEIGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has been ascertained that Mr. M'Monagle, secretary to the Sessiaghoneill East Donegal Co-operative Society, was unjustly imprisoned; whether it has transpired that the shares and books which he refused to surrender were the property of his own society and not of the prosecutors; and whether the Government will consider any claim for compensation to Mr. M'Monagle.
  MR. BRYCE: The prosecutions in this case, which occurred last year, were not at the instance of the police, but of private prosecutors. I have no information whether the fact is as stated in the second part of the Question. I understand that the defendant has taken an action against the prosecutors for false arrest, but has failed. As at present advised, I do not see that the matter is one in which the Government are called upon to intervene.

TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
Clause 2:—
*MR. FELLmoved an Amendment to limit the number of persons engaged in picketing to "not more than three for each door, gate, or exit of the houses, works, or places." He said that at the last sitting of the Committee some discussion took place on this topic. This Amendment, while limiting the number of persons entitled to picket on behalf of a trade union body, somewhat enlarged the scope of their action. The Attorney-General had stated that while one or more persons were appointed for the purpose they would constitute a small body, while if 50 or 100 were sent it would amount to intimidation. He did not see what objection
1608
there could be to a body of three attending at or near the house or business place of a person from whom it was desired to obtain or to whom it was wished to communicate information and whom it was desired to advise to abstain from work. Three persons indeed could do that as well as or even better than a larger body. From the words "one or more" contained in the Bill it was clearly the intention that the body should be limited in numbers, but as had been pointed out by the Attorney-General there were works at which there were a good many exits, and a very small body certainly would not meet such a case as that mentioned by the hon. Member for Clitheroe, where there were forty exits. His Amendment would cover such a case, and he thought it desirable to have such provision clearly enacted in the Bill rather than that the number should have to be settled hereafter in the Law Courts.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 13, after the word ' persons,' to insert the words ' but not more than three for each door, gate, or exit of the houses, works, or places after mentioned.'"—(Mr. Fell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
*THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON,)said he could not accept the Amendment. The clause provided that the picketing must be done "peaceably and in a reasonable manner" the reasonableness of such a proceeding depended upon various considerations, not merely the number of persons engaged in it but such things as the place, the hour of the day or night, the language used, and if only one of these considerations was mentioned in the clause it would throw into subordination the other elements which any tribunal would have to consider if called upon to decide whether the persuasion had been carried out in a reasonable manner. The Amendment, in his opinion, would not strengthen the clause, but on the contrary would weaken it.
SIR E. CARSONsaid he thought that on a former occasion the Attorney-General pledged himself to some such Amendment as this.
*SIR JOHN WALTON: I distinctly declined to pledge myself.
SIR E. CARSONsaid that when this question was being considered the Attorney-General said he would consider by the Report stage whether he could find words to meet the point, whereupon an hon. Member got up below the gangway and said he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not consider it. Apparently he had not considered it.
*SIR JOHN WALTON: That is not a fair description of what occurred. I have considered the point, and I have given my reasons for not accepting the Amendment.
SIR E. CARSONslid that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not considered it, because of what fell from an hon. Member below the gangway on this side of the House.
MR. WALTERSsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University had no right to make such an observation.
SIR E. CARSON: I have a right to say it, and I will not be stopped from saying it, because it is the fact. The whole question of numbers is most important, and that is the very point we are seeking to raise by this Amendment.
SIR. F. BANBURY: Do I understand the Attorney-General to say he has considered the matter and has come to the conclusion that it would be wise to introduce words defining what are reasonable numbers?
*SIR JOHN WALTON: I think the question whether the right is exercised by a body of persons in a reasonable manner must involve the consideration whether the number is calculated to intimidate. I do not see how such an element can be excluded, but at the same time I do not think it wise to mention only one consideration in the clause to the exclusion of all others.
SIR F. BANBURYagreed that the Attorney-General promised to consider whether or not he would introduce certain words. Apparently he had done so and had come to the conclusion that the inclusion of the words was not advisable. It was the fact that an hon. Member below the gangway got up and expressed a hope that the point would not be considered, and hon. Members of the Opposition must be excused if in view of what took place in the earlier proceedings on the Bill they felt that the intervention of hon. Members below the gangway had something to do with the decision arrived at. But personally he was not at all sure that the introduction of the words would meet with his approval. They might make the sense a little better, but the clause was a bad one, and the best thing would be to move its rejection later on, as he proposed to do. To amend it now as suggested might prevent them dividing against it later on. As a matter of fact three men might be as intimidatory as fifty if they had at their back the power of the great trade unions. He regretted that their attempts to amend the Bill were not accepted in the spirit they should be. It was clear from their cheers and attitude that hon. Members below the gangway representing the Independent Labour Party wanted the Bill and nothing but the Bill. He believed the passing of the Bill would be bad for the country, and that it would injure the hon. Members and their friends more than it would the employers.
Question put, and negatived.
*MR. BOWLESmoved an Amendment to provide that persons engaged in picketing should be duly appointed by and act on behalf of a trade union. It seemed to him that the principle of the Bill was to regard capital and labour as two separate and distinct opposing armies and to make rules for their internal and external regulation. The Bill contemplated disputes between trade unions of workmen on the one hand and employers on the other. That might be a good thing or it might be a bad thing, but he desired to exclude from the conflict purely private persons who would be under no discipline

1611
and owing allegiance to nobody, possibly having no connection in the world, direct or indirect, with the dispute—people, for instance, like loafers, the assistance of whom neither side could properly desire and whose intervention must often result in undeserved anxieties to both. If the Government was determined to range capital against labour in this way, at least let the actual fighting be confined to the regular soldiers on each side, and let the camp followers and hangers-on of each side be excluded.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, lines 13 and 14, to leave out the words 'acting on their own behalf or,' and insert the words ' duly appointed by and acting.'"—(Mr. Bowles.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he had several objections to this Amendment. In the first place the practical effect would be that workmen employed in the same works could not persuade each other. If workmen A and B wanted to persuade workman C it would be necessary for them to go first to the union and be appointed agents.
SIR HOWARD VINCENTcomplained that there was nothing in the clause to prevent such things as occurred in a recent colliery strike in France, where the strikers followed a miner to his house on his return from work and so irritated him by their conduct that he shot the ringleader dead.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that question arises on this clause. It would be covered by the words—
" peaceably and in a reasonable manner."
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the Amendment would not prevent workmen from discussing their affairs in the workshop, but it would prevent persons other than the authorised representatives of a trade union from going in a deputation to the house of a workman in order to persuade him. He would like to ask that body other than a trade union should send a deputation? [An HON
1612
MEMBER: The Temperance organisation]. Well, he knew that temperance bodies were very bigoted. ['' Oh, oh."] [Another HON. MEMBER: And the Tariff Reform League]. He did not think the Tariff Reform League ever did such an unreasonable thing. What they must avoid was enabling the use of indirect pressure for which it would be possible for the trade union to escape responsibility.
*SIR FRANCIS POWELLreminded the Committee of what was done by Lord Cross's Act of 1875. The Conservative Government of that day did not think necessary the precautions which thirty years later it was declared were necessary.
Amendment negatived.
MR. F. E. SMITHmoved an Amendment that it should be lawful for one or more persons acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union, "whether of workmen or masters," To attend at or near a house or place to obtain or communicate information or exercise peaceful persuasion. The object was to extend the same privilege to employers as was being extended to workmen, and he hoped the Attorney-General would render discussion on it unnecessary by at once intimating his acceptance. It was only consistent that this should be done, and was undoubtedly the original intention of the Bill. Hon. Members below the gangway had always declared that they desired nothing better than that their unions should be placed in the same position as associations of masters, and surely it was only lair that if trade unions were to be allowed to picket employers should also have the right in an industrial dispute to avail themselves of an analogous practice.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 14, after the word ' union,' to insert the words ' whether of workmen or masters.'"—(Mr. F. E. Smith.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid that he could not accept the Amendment. He held that it was not needed. He pointed out that if the employers were organized as a trade union they came within the definition of "trade union" contained in the Act of 1876, which, among other things, said that a trade union was a union between masters and masters. It was obvious, therefore, that persons might exercise this right either because they chose themselves to exercise it or as a right belonging to the men or the masters. There was nothing in the Bill to limit its scope to unions of men or to confine the right of persuasion to the representatives of the men. A man might persuade on behalf of the union, and a man might also do so on behalf of his master. That, he thought, was abundantly clear on the parallel of the legislation which he had mentioned.
*MR. HILLSsaid he quite understood that it was right that both masters and men should have the right of persuasion. What he wished to know, however, was whether the Attorney-General meant that the words trade union always included an association of employers.
SIR JOHN WALTON: Yes; that is so under the former Act.
*MR. HILLSthought that the Attorney-General ought to define what was meant by trade disputes and trade organisations. If he did so, he thought that all parties would be satisfied.
SIR E. CARSONdid not think that the argument of the Attorney-General would hold water. He thought the words "trade union" might be held to exclude associations of masters. He might also point out that the Attorney-General had himself put into his new clause the words, "trade unions of masters and workmen," and it appeared to him that if those words occurred in the new clause they would give rise to serious doubt hereafter, because they would tend to show that it was not intended to throw the question back on the previous Act. If already the
1614
term "trade unions"Included associations of masters, he did not see why a definition was necessary in this Bill; They ought definitely to settle this question of whether trade unions included associations of employers one way or the other.
LORD R. CECILdid not think the Attorney-General had considered the difficulty of this matter. He quite agreed that the provision that a trade union should not be liable for any action in tort should, if such a revolutionary principle were introduced at all, apply to masters as well as men. When, however, it came to a question of peaceful picketing everybody knew that it was desired by the men for the purpose of exercising pressure upon those who were not members of their union, and he thought that the introduction of this clause might lead to a system of industrial war instead of a system which regularised the ordinary practice now prevailing. Up to the present, however, it had not been the practice of the masters to picket, in any sense of the term. There would therefore be no harm, he thought, in inserting the words of the Amendment "whether of workmen or masters" In order to make it clear that the masters were to be placed in the same position as the workmen.
Question put, and negatived.
THE CHAIRMANsuggested that the substance of the decision appeared to cover the Amendment of the hon. Member for Norwood, which appeared next upon the Paper.
MR. BOWLESinquired whether the Chairman said that his Amendment to insert after the word "union" the words "or of an employer" was out of order.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid he had not ruled that it was out of order, but he had said that he thought that the points raised by it were practically though not technically, disposed of by

1615
the decision at which the Committee had just arrived. He could not, however, ay that it was out of order.
*MR. BOWLES: Then I should be justified in moving it?
*THE CHAIRMAN: Oh, yes, the hon. Member can move it.
*MR. BOWLESthen moved to insert after the word "union" the words "or of an employer." He said that this Amendment differed very considerably from that which had been just negatived. It would be seen from the clause that a definite legal right to picket was conferred upon two different classes of persons, and two different classes of persons only. These acts might be done by persons who were entirely unconnected with the dispute acting on their own behalf, or persons acting on behalf of a trade union, and they now understood that trade union included an association of masters as well as an association of workmen. Therefore it came to this, that in contemplation of or during a trade dispute "picketing" of the kind contemplated by the clause was only lawful when it was carried on by persons acting on their own behalf, or by persons acting on behalf of a trade union, whether the trade union was composed of men or masters. This left out one class altogether who would be incapable of taking any action in their own defence. The clause as it stood entirely excluded the case of the employer— probably the small employer—who did not belong to any association of employers at all. That employer would, if he were involved in a trade dispute, have no power whatever to avail himself of the immunities and rights conferred by the clause, although they might be used against him in a most direct manner by an association of workmen. That was not reasonable nor fair, and the object of his Amendment was simply and solely to protect the single employer, who was not a member of an association. He hoped it would not be contended that under this Bill every employer would have to combine and join some association of masters. The notion that industry was to be divided into
1616
two great camps, and organisation was to take the place of freedom, was calculated in the end to lead to industrial anarchy. He held that industrial disputes did not differ from any other disputes, and were equally capable of being dealt with by the ordinary and equitable laws of civilisation. That was not the object of the Bill, which took out of the ordinary equitable laws of civilisation one set of disputes and one set only, namely, trade disputes. Surely, then, if that was to be done, the great and exceptional immunities and powers of the Bill ought at least to be conferred with an equal hand upon every person who might have become a party to such a dispute.
Amendment proposed —
"In page 1, line 14, after the word ' union,' to insert the words 'or of an employer.'' —(Mr. Bowles.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the scope of this clause was to legalise acts of combination. But it did not deal with the acts of individuals, which were regulated by the ordinary law. Any employer who within the law sought to persuade his men not to leave their work was entitled to do so, and his case did not call for any special legislation in his favour, because he had the rights of an ordinary citizen.
MR. F. E. SMITHthought the Attorney-General was entirely in error when he said that the clause only dealt with acts done in combination, because it dealt with the acts of a person acting on his own behalf.
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he had not implied that the words "a person acting on his own behalf" would come within the word "combination." What he had said was that it was unnecessary to deal with the case of the employer who was not a member of an association and who endeavoured to induce his men to remain at work.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman stated that the Bill

1617
dealt only with the rights of people acting in combination, and did not deal with individuals. But that was quite different from the construction he had put upon the words of the clause only a moment or two ago. He said that art employer was perfectly well able to take care of himself, and he supposed that an association of employers would a fortiori be able to take care of itself. He did not appreciate the logic upon which the hon. and learned Attorney-General took up his position. It was perfectly clear that his hon. friend was right in the contention which he had put forward. Let them take the case of an ordinary employer who did not belong to a ring or union of employers. Strangers could come down and picket his men while the individual employer not belonging to a trade union was not allowed to take any action.
*SIR JOHN WALTON: I never said anything of the sort.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid he wished in view of that assertion to ask two questions. He wished to ask first of all whether it was still the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman that under this clause an association or union of employers could counter-picket, and, secondly, was it his opinion that the individual employer could himself employ pickets under the clause.
SIR JOHN WALTONwas afraid that he did not make himself clear, but he thought as a lawyer the hon. Member would have understood what he said. The individual employer might under the ordinary law persuade his workmen not to leave their work, but a combination of employers if they acted together in doing so might be found guilty of conspiracy although the act which they committed if committed by an individual might not be criminal at common law. Apart altogether from the act of combination it was perfectly clear that an individual master might, if he did not commit a nuisance or trespass or violate the law in any way, persuade his own workmen. That was the common law and it was quite unnecessary to amend this clause in the manner suggested.
LORD R. CECILsaid he was simply amazed at the statements of the honourable and learned Attorney-General. He could not understand what he meant. Here was a clause that was going to legalise something that was not now lawful. It was going to make it legal to persuade men to work or not to work as the case might be. If it was lawful now to persuade a man not to work or to work, as the case might be, then they did not want this clause at all, but if it was not lawful so to persuade a man then they wanted to legalise it not only for the men but for the masters also. He thought they were all agreed on that.
SIR JOHN WALTON: We are not agreed. I pointed out that if it was a combination it was not legal.
LORD R. CECILsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman did not follow the point. It was perfectly plain. The hon. and learned Attorney-General said it was a matter of combination. If three men were used by a master to counter-picket it was not lawful. If they did it on their own behalf they were protected by this clause; if the master said "go and do it" it was not legal. It was plain there was no protection if the men were acting on behalf of an employer, whilst there was if they were acting on behalf of a trade union. It was true that the unions of the masters were protected as well as the unions of the men, but the particular individual employer was not protected. Where was the justice of that? One of the two parties to these industrial wars, constantly, was the single employer, and the other was the trade union. This clause said to the trade unions, "You can employ two or three persons to picket," and it said to the employers, "You are not to have two or three men to counter-picket." "It shall be lawful for any person or persons," those were the people who were protected, the people who were employed by a trade union or on their own behalf, to do what? To picket. They must be people acting on their own behalf or on behalf of, a trade union. This clause was limited to persons representing a trade union or a union of employers, but not to single employers. He thought that when hon.

1619
Members looked at it they would agree with him that this was not fair. He was quite sure hon. Members representing labour wanted to be as fair to the employer as to the workman. Therefore he thought some such words as those suggested by his hon. friend should be inserted.
SIR E. CARSONsaid that, he was, he supposed, one of those stupid persons who could not follow the arguments of the hon. and learned Attorney -General. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that this was a clause dealing with combinations, but he failed to agree with that, because they had agreed in the previous clause that acts of combinations should not be legal unless they were act; that could be legally performed by one person. The question was a very simple one; it was whether under Clause 2 an employer sending out pickets could have the benefit of this security. As he understood the section and the argument of the hon. and learned Attorney-General, he could not. If the hon. and learned Attorney-General meant that, he meant to pass one-sided legislation. He saw no harm in the Amendment of the hon. Member. While the Government was giving permission to the unions to picket it was absolutely refusing that right to an employer who did not join a ring of employers. If that was what the Government intended, if the single employer was not to have this right, let them say so.
*MR. HILLSasked whether he might make one more appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman to accept this Amendment. After the Act of 1875 picketing was allowed for the purpose of obtaining or communicating information. They all knew that those words were narrow, and as one hon. member had told them, did not cover certain acts which he had performed. It was intended by this Bill to carry that a step further and allow picketing for the purposes of peaceful persuasion to work or to abstain from working. Before the Act of 1875 no union of workmen or association of employers or a single employer could picket without running great risks. After the Act of 1875 they could
1620
picket within certain limits. Now it was suggested by this Bill that certain persons should picket within very wide limits. Who were those persons? They were either associations of employers or associations of workmen, but there was no right in this clause for a single employer to introduce counter-picketing on his own behalf. If he did he ran a great risk. All they wanted was perfect fairness. Why should an employer who was not one of an association of employers be put in a worse position than a member of such an association? All they wanted was that the extended rights of this Bill should be granted to the employer who was not a member of an association of employers. The hon. and learned Attorney-General said the single employer had his rights under common law, but, the rights of an employer under common law were very small rights, and they were putting him, by this Bill, back into the position from which the trade unions of working men were rescued in 1875. Of course if he was wrong he was perfectly prepared to be corrected, but he could not see what answer there was to his contention.
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he quite agreed that if its effect would be to put the single employer into a worse position, the clause ought to be modified, but as he read the clause it was intended to deal with cases in which the act of combination changed its legal character by reason of its being an act of a combination. If these words "one or more persons acting on their own behalf or on behalf of" were not put in, a combination of masters and men could not exercise powers under this clause if the act was of tortious act owing to the character of it. The employer who was an individual and the master of workmen might undoubtedly in a peaceful way, either personally or through persons he might appoint to do so. It was idle to say this clause put the individual employer in a worse position.
LORD R. CECIL: I would venture to point out that we have not received an answer to the point I tried to put to him.
MR. BOWLES: I really must ask the hon. and learned Attorney-General—
SIR JOHN WALTONrose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 169, Noes, 22. (Division List No. 301.)

AYES.

Agnew, George William

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Alden, Percy

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

O'Grady, J.

Asquith, Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

O'Malley, William

Astbury, John Meir

Fuller, John Michael F.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Gill, A. H.

Paul, Herbert

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

Paulton, James Mellor

Baker,Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

Glover, Thomas

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Power, Patrick Joseph

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Barnard, E. R

Hall, Frederick

Raphael, Herbert H.

Barnes, G. N.

Hardie,J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

Richards,Thomas(W.Monm'th)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

Beale, W. P.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Richardson, A.

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Bell, Richard

Haworth, Arthur A.

Robertson,Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Hazleton, Richard

Robertson,SirGScott(Bradfrd)

Bertram, Julius

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Billson, Alfred

Higham, John Sharp

Robinson, S.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Hudson, Walter

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Black,Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

Hyde, Clarendon

Rowlands, J.

Brace, William

Illingworth, Percy H.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Brigg, John

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Brooke, Stopford

Jacoby, James Alfred

Sehwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

Brunner, J. F. L.(Lancs.,Leigh)

Jardine, Sir J.

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne)

Brunner, Sir John.T. (Cheshire)

Jenkins, J.

Sears, J. E.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Shackleton, David James

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. Hawick.B.)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Jowett, F. W.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Byles, William Pollard

Joyce, Michael

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Cameron, Robert

Kelley, George D.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Causton,Rt. Hn.RichardKnight

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Snowden, P.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Lamont, Norman

Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph(Chesh.)

Clancy, John Joseph

Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

Steadman, W. C.

Cleland, J. W.

Lehmann, R. J.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Clough, W.

Lewis, John Herbert

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lough, Thomas

Sullivan, Donal

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Lupton, Arnold

Summerbell, T.

Cooper, G. J.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Corbett,CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd)

Lynch, H. B.

Thorne, William

Cowan, W. H.

Macdonald, J, R. (Leicester)

Toulmin, George

Crooks, William

Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs)

Vivian, Henry

Crossley, William J.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Cullinan, J.

Macpherson, J. T.

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down.S.)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Davies, WT. Howell (Bristol, S.)

MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal,E.)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Dickinson, W. H. (St. PancrasN.)

M'Callum, John M.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Maddison, Frederick

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Duckworth, James

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Wilkie, Alexander

Duncan,C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Marnham, F. J.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Massie, J.

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Elibank, Master of

Montagu, E. S.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Mooney, J. J.

Everett, R. Lacey

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

TELLERS OF THE AYES— Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease

Fenwick, Charles

Morse, L. L.

Ferens, T. R.

Murphy, John

Ffrench, Peter

Napier, T. B.

Nicholls, George

NOES.

Acland-Hood,RtHn.SirAlex.F.

Du Cros, Harvey

Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington)

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Forster, Henry William

Smith,F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)

Carson, Bt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Valentia, Viscount

Castlereage, Viscount

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Cavendish,Rt,Hon.Victor C.W.

Hamilton, Marquess of

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Hicks Beach and Mr. Bowles.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Hills, J. W.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Parkes, Ebenezer

Question put accordingly, "That the words 'or of an employer' be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 23, Noes, 173. (Division List No. 302.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood,RtHn.Sir Alex.F.

Du Cros, Harvey

Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Smith,F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Forster, Henry William

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Valentia, Viscount

Castlereagh, Viscount

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Cavendish,Rt.Hon.Victor C.W.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Hicks Beach and Mr. Bowles.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Hills, J. W.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

NOES.

Agnew, George William

Cowan, W. H.

Jardine, Sir J.

Alden, Percy

Crooks, William

Jenkins, J.

Asquith, Rt. Hn.Herbert Henry

Crossley, William J.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Astbury, John Meir

Cullinan, J.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Jowett, F. W.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Joyce, Michael

Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury,E.)

Dickinson,W.H.(St.Pancras,N.

Kelley, George D.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Duckworth, James

Lamont, Norman

Barnard, E. B.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Leese,Sir JosephF.(Accrington)

Barnes, G. N.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lehmann, R. C.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Lewis, John Herbert

Beale, W. P.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lough, Thomas

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Elibank, Master of

Lupton, Arnold

Bell, Richard

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lyell, Charles Henry

Bellairs, Carlyon

Everett, R. Lacey

Lynch, H. B.

Bertram, Julius

Fenwick, Charles

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Billson, Alfred

Ferens, T. R.

Macdonald,J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

Black,Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

Ffrench, Peter

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Brace, William

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Macpherson, J. T.

Brigg, John

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Brooke, Stopford

Fuller, John Michael F.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal,E.

Brunner, J. F. L.(Lancs.,Leigh)

Gill, A. H.

M'Callum, John M.

Brunner, Sir JohnT. (Cheshire)

Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

Maddison, Frederick

Burke, E. Haviland

Glover, Thomas

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Marnham, F. J.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Massie, J.

Byles, William Pollard

Hall, Frederick

Molteno, Percy Alport

Cameron, Robert

Hardie,J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

Montagu, E. S.

Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Mooney, J. J.

Charming, Francis Allston

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Morse, L. L.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Murphy, John

Clancy, John Joseph

Hazleton, Richard

Napier, T. B.

Clarke, C. Goddard

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nicholls, George

Cleland, J. W.

Higham, John Sharp

Nicholson,Charles N.(Donc'st'r

Clough, W.

Hudson, Walter

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hyde, Clarendon

O'Grady, J.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Malley, William

Cooper, G. J.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Parker, James (Halifax)

Corbett,C.H(Sussex,E. Grinst'd

Jacoby, James Alfred

Paid, Herbert

Paulton, James Mellor

Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Toulmin, George

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Sears, J. E.

Vivian, Henry

Power, Patrick Joseph

Seely, Major J. B.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Shackleton, David James

Walters, John Tudor

Raphael, Herbert H.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Richards, T. F.(Wolvorh'mpt'n

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Richardson, A.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

Snowden. P.

Wilkie, Alexander

Robertson,Sir G.Scott(Bradfrd

Stanley, Hn. A.Lyulph(Chosh.)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Steadman, W. C.

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Robinson, S.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Rowlands, J.

Sullivan, Donal

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Summerbell, T.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. Pease.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester)

Thorne, William

SIR JOHN WALTONclaimed "That the Question 'That the words of the Clause to the word '' peaceably "In line 15, stand part of the Clause ' be now put."
Question put. "That the Question ' That the words of the Clause to the
word" peaceably, "In line 15, stand part of the Clause' be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 178, Noes 24. (Division List No. 303.)

AYES.

Agnew, George William

Cooper, G. J.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Alden, Percy

Corbett,C.H(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Asquith,Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry

Cowan, W. H.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Astbury, John Meir

Crooks, William

Jardine, Sir J.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Crossley, William J,

Jenkins, J.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Cullinan, J.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Jowett, F. W.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N.

Joyce, Michael

Barnard, E. B.

Dilke, Rt.Hon.Sir Charles

Kekewich, Sir George

Barnes, G. N.

Duckworth, James

Kelly, George D.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Beale, W. P.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Lamont, Norman

Bell, Richard

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Leese, Sir JosephF.(Accrington

Bellairs, Carlyon

Elibank, Master of

Lehmann, R. C.

Bertram, Julius

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lewis, John Herbert

Billson, Alfred

Everett, R. Lacey

Lough, Thomas

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Fenwick, Charles

Lupton, Arnold

Black, Arthur W-(Bedfordshire

Ferens, T. R.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Brace, William

Ffrench, Peter

Lynch, H. B.

Brigg, John

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Macdonald,J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Brooke, Stopford

Fuller, John Michael F.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Brunner,J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Gill, A. H.

Macpherson, J. T.

Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire)

Gladstone, Rt.Hn. Herbert John

MacVeagh Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Glover, Thomas

MacVeigh,Charles(DonegaI, E.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Callum, John M.

Byles, William Pollard

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Maddison, Frederick

Cameron, Robert

Hall, Frederick

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

Hardie,J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

Marnham, F. J. W

Channing, Francis Allston

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Massie. J.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Montagu, E. S.

Clancy, John Joseph

Haworth, Arthur A.

Mooney, J. J.

Clarke, C. Goddard

Hazleton, Richard

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Cleland, J. W.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morse, L. L.

Clough, W.

Higham, John Sharp

Murphy, John

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hudson, Walter

Napier, T. B.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hyde, Clarendon

Nicholls, George

Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Thorne, William

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Toulmin, George

O'Grady, J.

Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

Ure, Alexander

O'Malley, William

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Vivian, Henry

Parker, James (Halifax)

Sears, J. E.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Paul, Herbert

Sooty, Major J. B.

Walters, John Tudor

Paulton, James Mellor

Shackleton, David James

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S,)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick.B.)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Ward, John(Stoke-upon-Trent)

Price, C.E.(Edinburgh,Central)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Whitley, J. H.(Halifax)

Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th

Smyth,ThomasF.(Leitrim, S.)

Wilkie, Alexander

Richards, T. P. (Wolverh'mptn

Snowdon, P.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Richardson, A.

Stanley,Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln

Steadman, W. C.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Robertson,Rt.Hn. E. (Dundee)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradfrd

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Robinson, S.

Sullivan, Donal

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Summerbell, T.

Rowlands, J.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

NOES.

Acland-HoodRt.Hn.Sir Alex.F

Fell, Arthur

Smith,F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Thomson,W.Mitchell (Lanark)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Valentia, Viscount

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hamilton, Marquess of

Cavendish,Rt.Hon. Victor C.W.

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Hills, J. W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. Hicks Beach and Mr. Bowles.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone.E,)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

Du Cros, Harvey

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Question put accordingly.
The Committee divided: Ayes 181 Noes 22. (Division List No. 304.)

AYES.

Agnew, George William

Causton,Rt.HnRichard Knight

Ferens, T. R.

Alden, Percy

Channing, Francis Allston

Ffrench, Peter

Asquith,Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry

Cheetham, John Frederick

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Astbury, John Meir

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Atherley-Jones, L.

Clancy, John Joseph

Fuller, John Michael F.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Clarke, C. Goddard

Gill, A. H.

Baker, JosephA.(Pinsbury, E.)

Cleland, J. W.

Gladstone,Rt.Hn. HerbertJohn

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Clough, W.

Glover, Thomas

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Barnard, E. B.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Barnes, G. N.

Cooper, G. J.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Corbett,C H(Sussex,E.Grinst'd)

Hall, Frederick

Beale, W. P.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Cowan, W. H.

Hardie,J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

Bell, Richard

Crooks, William

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Crossley, William J.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Bertram, Julius

Cullinan, J.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Billson, Alfred

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Black, ArthurW.(Bedfordshire

Dickinson,W. H.(St. PancrasN.)

Hazleton, Richard

Brace, William

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Henderson, Arthur (Durham

Brigg, John

Duckworth, James

Higham, John Sharp

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Duncan,C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Brooke, Stopford

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hudson, Walter

Brunner,J.F.L.(Lancs., Leigh)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Hyde, Clarendon

Brunner,Sir John T.(Cheshire)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Elibank, Master of

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Jacoby, James Alfred

Byles, William Pollard

Everett, R. Lacey

Jardine, Sir J.

Cameron, Robert

Fenwick, Charles

Jenkins, J.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Murphy, John

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Napier, T. B.

Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)

Jowett, F. W.

Nicholls, George

Snowden, P.

Joyce, Michael

Nicholson,Charles N. (Doncast'r

Stanley, Hn.A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Kekewich, Sir George

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Steadman, W. C.

Kelley, George D.

O'Grady, J.

Strachey, Sir Edward

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Paul, Herbert

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Lamont, Norman

Paulton, James Mellor

Sullivan, Donal

Leese,Sir JosephF.(Accrington)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Summerbell, T.

Lehmann, R. C.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Lewis, John Herbert

Price, C.E. (Edinburgh,Central)

Thorne, William

Lough, Thomas

Raphael, Herbert H.

Toulmin, George

Lupton, Arnold

Richards, Thomas(W. Monmth

Ure, Alexander

Lyell, Charles Henry

Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n)

Vivian, Henry

Lynch, H. B

Richardson, A.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Robertson,Rt.Hn. E. (Dundee)

Walters, John Tudor

Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs)

Robertson.Sir GScott(Bradf'rd

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Macpherson, J. T.

Robinson, S.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

MacVeagh Jeremiah (Down S.)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal,E.)

Rowlands, J.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

M'Callum, John M.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Wilkie, Alexander

Maddison, Frederick

Schwann, Sir C. E.(Manchester)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Marnham, F. J.

Scott,A.H.(Asbton under Lyne

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Massie, J.

Sears, J. E.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Seely, Major J. B.

Montagu, E. S.

Shackleton, David James

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Mooney, J. J.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Pease.

Morse, L. L.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

NOES.

Acland-Hood,RtHn.Sir Alex. F.

Du Cros, Harvey

Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Smith,F.E. (Liverpool,Walton)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Forster, Henry William

Thomson,W.Mitchell- (Lanark)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Valentia, Viscount

Castlereagh, Viscount

Gordon J. (Londonderry, South)

Cavendish, Rt.Hn. Victor C. W.

Hamilton, Marquess of

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Hicks Beach and Air.

Cecil, LoL'd R. (Marylebone, E.)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Bowles.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Pease,HerbertPike(Darlington)

*SIR CHARLES. DILKEsaid the Committee now came to deal with a matter which was really very hard-fought in the Standing Committee last year, namely, the subject of picketing. It was the subject of a very long debate, and after a great deal of objection had been raised to the picketing clause words were proposed to be inserted substantially the same as were now in this Bill. An offer was made by the hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division, who was then in charge of the Bill, to put in these words. That offer was made to meet the opposition to this clause in a private Member's Bill, which was opposed by the Government in the Standing Committee, where the opponents of the measure had a larger proportional representation than in the House. Whilst there was a large majority in the House
1630
in favour of the Bill, in the Committee the majority was very small indeed. Finally, as a compromise, these words were offered. He admitted that they were taken from the Act of 1859, by which peaceable persuasion was definitely and formally recognised as lawful. After long debate, the present Lord Chancellor spoke very strongly against the insertion of these words. On the 5th April, Sir Robert Reid said that these words had been offered reluctantly by the hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division, and that their insertion had been reluctantly assented to by the friends of the Bill. The present Lord Chancellor also said that they were offered as an effort at conciliation; and that, if the Amendment was accepted, he would not offer that opposition which otherwise he should have offered to the inclusion of the words.

1631
That course on his part was dependent on whether the Conservative Government would give their support to the Amendment. Sir Robert Reid ended his speech by saying—
" I say emphatically that I do not think the insertion of the words necessary, and I think they may produce unfortunate results."
The words were rejected by the Committee on a division, on the ground which he had quoted from the speech of the present Lord Chancellor. The objection was that the word "reasonable" was dangerous, and that it was not desirable to put such a vague word into the Bill. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 15, to leave out the words ' peaceably and in a reasonable manner.' "— (Sir C. Dilke.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to De left out stand part of the Clause."
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he could not accept the Amendment. It was essential to the success of this Bill that these words should remain in the clause. It was obvious that when they were going to legalise the right of a number of persons to assemble with a view to persuading others, that right should be qualified in some proper manner by placing it under reasonable restrictions. There were two ways in which that might be done—they might specify the various conditions that must be observed in order to gauge the character of the gathering, and the proceedings of the people assembled. They might say, as had been suggested, that words should be inserted in the clause to indicate the hours within which the gathering might take place; they might specify the spot at which persons might assemble, and they might point out that they must not cause intimidation, or make use of language and demonstrations which would cause alarm or danger. That would be a cumbrous clause, and would cause as great difficulty in construction as the expression which the Government, as an alternative, had put into the Bill. On the one hand they would have a clause indicating the things and the conditions which must be observed by the men
1632
who were engaged in the operation, and on the other hand they would leave it to the discretion of the Courts of law to say what was reasonable. He accepted the view that some difficulty might arise in construing the word "reasonable." No doubt it was an extremely flexible expression. He felt, though he did not know whether his opinion was shared by others, just as great difficulty in setting out the conditions and qualifications subject to which this right might be exercised. While he thought it possible that the word "reasonable" might raise some difficulty in application, he could not conceive an expression more appropriate and more likely to do justice on the whole to all parties concerned.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESregretted that the Attorney-General could not see his way to accept the Amendment. He respectfully differed from his view that any limitations were necessary. The commission of an act at or near a place did not involve the commission of an illegal act; and if an illegal act of violence or intimidation or an act of a criminal character was committed, it would be open to the parties to take action. The words proposed to be left out, it appeared to him, were not only unnecessary but mischievous, because it was not put to the magistrate to deal with a matter of fact, but to find on a matter of opinion, and no law court could interfere with the decision which he arrived at when the words which were to be found in an Act of Parliament conferred discretion on him. The Attorney-General's illustration was inaccurate. He said that the clause might indicate certain hours. It might be an unreasonable hour, but it was for the magistrate to decide whether it was or was not a reasonable hour. It might be an hour perfectly reasonable in his view, and in the view of a trade union, and yet the magistrate might not think that it was a reasonable hour, and there would be no power to review his decision. He objected to loose language of this description in an Act of Parliament. He said with some considerable experience of the working of the Acts relating to trade unions that the retention of these words would mean handing over to the magistrates an absolutely unlimited discretion in arriving at

1633
a conclusion, whether picketing was or was not reasonable. For these reasons he urged the Attorney-General to be satisfied with the general conditions of the law, that a person who committed a criminal offence might be punished, and not to put in words which handed over picketing entirely to the mercy of the magistrates.
MR. SHACKLETONsaid that on the Second Reading of the Bill these words were mentioned, and it was understood that they would be matter for consideration on the Committee stage. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean in this matter. They would prefer that these words should be left out. He wished some compromise could be brought about n this matter. He would suggest that if the word "peaceably" was retained it would amply cover the intention of Parliament in regard to what might Tiappen in picketing. The word "reasonable"In the opinion of Labour Members gave the Courts too much scope. The Courts might decide that an action was unreasonable though it was not unlawful. He would urge the Attorney-General to consider whether the word "peaceably" would not cover the case. Trade unions did not wish to waste their money in regard to cases before the Courts. They wished to do the fair thing. Two magistrates might say that this or that was unreasonable, and there would be no appeal from their decision. Besides, this word gave an undue amount of power to a constable, for he had only to give his opinion that certain actions were unreasonable, and he would not need to give his reasons for coming to that conclusion. The opinion of the police was held to be of importance in police-courts. He appealed to the Attorney-General to consider whether the word "peaceably" would not cover all possible cases.
*SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid that in the discussion which had just taken place they were asked not to insert a maximum for a picket, because the Government was about to introduce the word "reasonable." He confessed that
1634
that remark of the Attorney-General influenced his vote, and he hoped the Government would stand by the announcement which they then made.
SIR E. CARSONsaid he was very glad the Attorney-General had made the announcement that he would adhere to these words. Any member who would consider the matter would see that it was absolutely necessary to have some limitation, and he could not conceive any words which were more capable than these of being applied to the very varied circumstances which might arise in these matters. If they put no words of limitation into the clause the question then arose, were they not entitled to carry out what they here legalised, no matter what might be the methods or the effect on the people concerned? To leave it at large like that, and to legalise picketing, no matter what might be done, or under what circumstances, seemed to be legislating entirely in the dark, and in the wildest possible fashion.
MR. PARKESthought that the words "peaceably and in a reasonable manner" were passively assented to in the earlier discussions on this matter by the hon. Members below the gangway, and it was astonishing to be told now that they were not necessary. For those who did not agree with this Bill and looked upon it as very drastic and extreme it was altogether too much to be told that these saving words were to be taken out. He did not think this Amendment would further the objects of trade unionists either in the House or anywhere else, indeed he did not think it would appeal to the common-sense of the people of this country. If a strike was not to be conducted in a peaceable and reasonable manner it was much to be regretted. Whether or not the words in question were necessary was a pure point of law, but from a common-sense point of view he thought labour disputes should clearly be conducted in a peaceable and reasonable manner, and it was only right that the House should express the opinion that these words should be retained. If they were deleted it would open the flood-gates to a great deal of lawlessness on the part of those who conducted

1635
strikes. It would react on both sides. Time after time when he had read this clause he had looked upon these words as the great safeguard it contained against lawlessness or against any severe methods with which trade disputes might be conducted. The Attorney-General had taken that view, and he was glad to say he had stood by his former declaration that the word "reasonable" was a necessary safeguard. If the word were left out they had the right to ask the Government to put a limitation upon the numbers of pickets. He hoped that the good sense and fairness of the Committee would lead them to reject the Amendment.
*SIR CHAELES DILKEsaid there were at present three dangers to the workmen engaged in picketing. There was the danger of being hit under the words at out molestation or obstruction; there was the danger of being hit under the word "reasonable," and there was the possible danger—which he thought was a real one—of being hit under the law of nuisance. They were all agreed as to the words "molestation" and "obstruction"the question they had now to argue was as to the other two words. He would point out that the word "reasonable" was voted against in the proceedings of the Standing Committee by five Members of the present Government, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the ground, as stated by the present Lord Chancellor, that the words were unnecessary and dangerous. He feared that in the absence of any statement on the part of the Government as to the Amendment on the word "nuisance," he should have to carry this Amendment to a division.
MR. KEIR HARDIEpointed out that what had been suggested by his hon. friend the Member for Clitheroe was not that they should strike out all the words "peaceably and in a reasonable manner," because they were quite prepared to agree to the retention of the word "peaceably." What they said was that, in trying to amend the law, they should not leave further opportunities for thwarting the obvious will and intention of the House by placing it within the power of the magistrates to take
1636
away, by a side wind, a right conferred by the House. He submitted that all that the Attorney-General desired, and that hon. Members on his own side of the-House desired, could be met by retaining the word "peaceably" and leaving out "In a reasonable manner," which words constituted a source of real danger. If the right hon. Baronet opposite would agree that his Amendment should take that form probably it would be accepted by the Government, but if not he would suggest that the right hon. Baronet should proceed to a division.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid that it was of course impossible to accept the Amendment, because the discussion had been conducted all through on the assumption—and he had met proposals of Amendments for safeguards on that very ground—that there was this provision in the Bill as it stood. If this clause were a declaration giving persons the right of picketing, which they might exercise providing they did so without violating the conditions prescribed, it was impossible that while they were exercising that right they should be doing anything illegal, because the object of the clause was to describe lawful conduct. The question whether it was proposed to picket in such a way as to cause a nuisance or a trespass must enter into the consideration whether or not the conduct was reasonable. If it was lawful conduct it could not be a nuisance or a trespass. He thought that his right hon. friend would recognise that it would not be reasonable to allow that right to be exercised without any kind of restriction. In the view of the hon. Member who had just spoken the word "peaceably" would be a sufficient restriction, but he did not think that it was any less vague or less difficult of construction than the word "reasonable." If they were to accept the view that there was to be some sort of restriction, he did not think that they could carry that view practically very much further than if they said that the assembly which was legalised under the clause must be peaceable and reasonable and must be conducted in a reasonable way. They had to face the danger of some harsh and restrictive construction being placed upon the clause, and he did not think they appreciably diminished

1637
that danger by striking out the word "reasonable." All the apprehensions that they had heard in the course of the debate were he thought ill founded, but he thought there would be a perfect feeling of security if it was provided that the powers given by the clause should be used reasonably. None of them contemplated the alternative of an unreasonable exercise of the power, and therefore they ought not to reject the proposal that the exercise should be of a reasonable character. For these reasons it was impossible for him to accept the Amendment.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIR M AN (Mr. CALDWELL,)said the
words which he should have to put from the Chair would be that the words "peacably and in a reasonable manner" stand part of the Question. He was bound to put the Question in that form unless the Amendment was withdrawn.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he would withdraw the Amendment.
Permission to withdraw the Amendment was refused.
Question put, "That the words ' peaceably and in a reasonable manner ' stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 140; Noes, 91. (Division List No. 305.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood,Rt Hn SirAlex.F.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Napier, T. B.

Agnew, George William

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Nicholson,Charles N.(Donc'st'r

Allen, A. Acland (Christcliurch)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Norman, Henry

Astbury, John Meir

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

Parkes, Ebenezer

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury,E.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Paul, Herbert

Balcarres, Lord

Gordon, J.(Londonderry,South

Paulton, James Mellor

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Philipps,Col.Ivor (S'thampton)

Barlow, Peiw (Bedford)

Hamilton, Marquess of

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

Raphael, Herbert H.

Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel

Beale, W. P.

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Rickett, J. Compton

Bellairs, Carlyon

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)

Bertram, Julius

Haworth, Arthur A.

Robinson, S.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Henderson, J.M.(Abordeen,W.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Blank, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

Henry, Charles S.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hills, J. W.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Brigg, John

Hobart, Sir Robert

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Brunner, J. F. L.(Lancs.,Leigh)

Horniman, Emslie John

Schwann,Sir C. E. (Manchester

Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Sears, J. E.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

Cameron, Robert

Jardine, Sir J.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Castlereagh, Viscount

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Smith,F.E. (Liverpool,Walton)

Causton, Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

Laidlaw, Robert

Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lambert, George

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey

Lamont, Norman

Strachey, Sir Edward

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Leese,Sir JosephF.(Accrington)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Channing, Francis Allston

Lewis, John Herbert

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Lough, Thomas

Tennant,Sir Edward (Salisbury

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Lupton, Arnold

Thomasson, Franklin

Clarke, C. Goddard

Lyell, Charles Henry

Thompson, J. W.H. (Somerset, E

Cleland, J. W.

Lynch, H. B.

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

Clough, W.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Toulmin, George

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

M'Callum, John M.

Ure, Alexander

Corbett.C H (Sussex,E.Grinst'd

M'Kenna, Reginald

Verney, F. W.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Mallet, Charles E.

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston)

Wallace, Robert

Crossley, William J.

Marnham, F. J.

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Massie, J.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Duckworth, James

Menzies, Walter

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Elibank, Master of

Molteno, Percy Alport

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Everett, R. Lacey

Montagu, E. S.

Fell, Arthur

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Ferens, T. R.

Morse, L. L.

MR. Whitelcy and Mr. J. A.

Forster, Henry William

Morton, Alphens Cleophas

Pease.

NOES.

Alden, Percy

Hazleton, Richard

Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th

Atherley-Jones, L.

Higham, John Sharp

Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Hudson, Walter

Richardson, A.

Barnard, E. B.

Hyde, Clarendon

Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

Barnes, G. N.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Bell, Richard

Jenkins, J.

Rowlands,.J.

Billson, Alfred

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Brace, William

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Shackleton, David James

Brooke, Stopford

Jowett, F. W.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Joyce, Michael

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Kekewich, Sir George

Snowden, P.

Byles, William Pollard

Kelley, George D.

Steadman, W. C.

Clancy, John Joseph

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Sullivan, Donal

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lehmann, R. C.

Summerbell, T.

Cooper, G. J.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Crooks, William

Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs)

Thorne, William

Cullinan, J.

Macpherson, J. T.

Vivian, Henry

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal,E.)

Walters, John Tudor

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Maddison, Frederick

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Masterman, C. F. G.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Mooney, J. J.

Wilkie, Alexander

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Murphy, John

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Esmonde, S:r Thomas

Nicholls, George

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Ffrench, Peter

Nolan, Joseph

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Gill, A. H.

O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Glover, Thomas

O'Grady J.

Hall, Frederick

O'Malley, William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Hardie,J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Mr. Arthur Henderson and

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Mr. Fenwick.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Price, C.E.(Edinburgh, Central

*MR. BOWLESmoved to insert the words "any entrance to" after the word "near" In page 1, line 16, so that the clause should read "at or near any entrance to a house or place where a person resides or works or carries on business or happens to be," the object of the Amendment was simple. It was to restrict the acts contemplated by this clause, which were of an extremely wide and general nature, to the entrances of the places in regard to which they were to be allowed, and not to allow them anywhere irrespective altogether of the places in respect to which they were committed. Hon. Gentlemen would see that this clause proposed to give power to picket to obtain or communicate information or peacefully to persuade. He did not believe it was contemplated by this clause that men, either acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union, should be allowed to go, expressly as he had stated, anywhere they chose. They should be restricted in some degree at any rate, and he suggested that it was a very reasonable restriction to say that they should obtain this information and peacefully per-
1640
suade where after all they might reasonably expect that their efforts might be crowned with success, namely, at the entrance of the works or house or other place. He put this forward with the view of restricting in some degree the operation of this powerful and drastic clause, and he hoped the honourable and learned Gentleman, if he was not prepared to accept it, would give some reason why these people should be allowed to go everywhere as they chose, and why they should not be restricted in the manner he suggested. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 16, after the word ' near,' to insert the words ' any entrance to.' "—(Mr. Bowles.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he thought the word "reasonable" covered this. If men were entitled to congregate near a house they must necessarily attend near the entrance. He hoped he hon. Gentleman would not press this Amendmen
LORD R. CECILhoped after the appeal that the hon. and learned Attorney-General had made, his hon. friend would be allowed to withdraw his Amendment. He hoped he would not press it.
MR. BOWLESsaid he appreciated the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYmoved to insert after the word "person"the words "concerned in such trade dispute," the object of the Amendment was to limit the action of the clause so that it should be lawful for one or more persons acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union to attend peaceably and in a reasonable manner, "at or near a house or place where a person concerned in such trade dispute resides or works."That would prevent a trade union sending a picket to attend the houses of people not then concerned in the particular dispute, but who might possibly be drawn into the dispute later on. By that he meant that if a man had been engaged to take the place of a person engaged in a strike, and that man lived at a distance it would be lawful to attend at the house of that workman though it was at a great distance away. If these disputes arose largely on the question of wages it might be said that the insertion of these words would render the clause nugatory, but these disputes arose not only upon the question of wage but on a variety of other questions, as, for instance, whether a non-union man was to be employed. If a dispute arose on that ground, unless the words he moved were inserted, it would be open to the trade union men to attend at the houses of the non-union men and prevent them from earning an honest livelihood. It was perfectly well known that such disputes must arise, and his reason for moving the Amendment was that while it might be perfectly lawful and right for a trade union not to allow their men to work with non-union men if they did not desire them to do so, on the other hand it was not right to allow them to picket the houses of hundreds of
1642
non-unionist men who were not concerned in the dispute and prevent them from getting an honest living. Although he was afraid the Attorney-General would not accept it he thought the Amendment was a reasonable one; therefore he begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 16, after the word ' person,' to insert the words ' concerned in any such trade dispute.' "—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
Question proposed, "That those words be inserted."
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the purpose of this clause was to allow certain persons to meet outside the houses of others for the purpose of peacefully persuading them in the case of a trade dispute to abstain from working or to work as the case might be. He could not accept the Amendment, as he could not imagine a person concerned in a trade dispute waiting outside the house of a person who was not concerned in that trade dispute.
LORD R. CECILsaid that if the hon. and learned Attorney-General was right as to his facts then his contention was a correct one, but the information that reached him was that in cases of dispute it was quite a common thing for the men to picket not the houses of other men but the houses of their relatives if they were not amenable. That was quite common. He did not suggest that any hon. Member of this House would countenance any such thing at all, but they must be conscious of it, because they were reasonable men and must know that cases did occur from time to time— isolated cases they might be—which they all deplored. It was clearly desirable that hon. Members below the gangway and hon. Members opposite should not permit that class of thing of which they disapproved. So long as picketing was confined to persons concerned in the dispute it was one thing, but with regard to the other matter it was quite different. There could be no object in permitting the picketing of persons not concerned in the dispute. He was also told by those who had a greater knowledge of these disputes than he pretended to that there was another practice which

1643
was not uncommon, and that was to picket the lodging-house keepers and others in whose houses the men lived. That was a very serious matter, and one that, so far as he could see, was not dealt with by this clause. These words were not purely otiose and ridiculous. They were words to which those familiar with the question attached great importance. It was an Amendment that had been singled out to him as one of the most important to this oppressive clause, and therefore he hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman would reconsider the matter and regard it more favourably.
MR. VERNEYsaid one of the most important parts of the duty or privileges of a picket was to obtain information. Very likely he might have to go to someone not directly concerned in the dispute to obtain that information, and that part of the clause was surely not going to be left out. Moreover, he thought the phrase "concerned in the dispute" did include a large number of people not actually on strike. Many might be concerned in a dispute who were not directly concerned, and therefore he thought the Amendment proposed could not possibly be accepted.
SIR E. CARSONsaid it was entirely a matter of taste whether persons would like to have pickets outside their house or not, although they were not concerned in any dispute. The hon. Member who had just sat down appeared to think it was quite right and quite possible, and that this House ought to lay down that some person not concerned in a trade dispute ought to be picketed because information was required. He should have thought that that was a serious infringement of the liberty of the subject, and that no Act of Parliament contemplated anything of that kind. The Attorney-General took another line. He said he could not conceive a person picketing anybody else unless that person was concerned in the dispute. That was exactly contrary to the argument taken last year when he was in charge of a Labour Bill in this House. What he was then told was that it was absolutely
1644
necessary for a trade union in connection with a strike at times to interfere with others by picketing persons who were not concerned in the dispute but whom it might be desirable to get to join in the dispute. He was told that that was the whole object of the measure. That was what they on the Opposition side of the House objected to. They said that the principle which the House ought to lay down was that it should not to be allowed by that section to picket persons who were not concerned in the dispute. He thought that was a moderate Amendment and worthy of the consideration of the hon. and learned Gentleman and of the country.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYcalled attention to the fact that evidence was brought before the Commission—he took his information from the South Wales Daily News of November 3rd, 190a4—to the effect that when the non-unionists were found to be lodgers the women insisted upon instant notice to quit being given them, with the result that all were very shortly put out. When the Attorney-General said nobody would attend and picket the house of a person not concerned in the dispute he begged to call his attention to the fact that here was a case where they attended and picketed lodging-houses.
THE CHAIRMANsaid the words under discussion had nothing to do with the owners of lodging-houses.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid his Amendment was to prevent picketing at or near the house of a person not concerned in the trade dispute. The Attorney-General said that the words he proposed to put in were useless, because he knew of no instance in which a person would attend at or near the house of a person not concerned in the dispute. His object was to show that a person could and would so attend.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid that if the hon. Gentleman looked at the clause he would see that it permitted picketing for the purpose of persuading a person to work or not to work. It could not be necessary to picket a man who was not concerned in. the dispute. The only object that

1645
could justify picketing was that it was intended to persuade a man who was concerned in the dispute, and he would say non-unionist men were clearly persons to whom they were entitled to go for the purpose of persuading them to work or not to work.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYasked the hon. and learned Gentleman whether, if this clause were passed in its present form, it would be legal for a picket to attend a lodging-house and persuade the keeper to turn out any man concerned in the trade dispute.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid it was only for the purpose of persuading a person to work or abstain from work; it would not apply to a lodging-house keeper.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid he did not propose to take part in the discussion on the merits of the clause, but he wanted the Committee to understand what it was voting for. For the Attorney-General to get up and say this Amendment was absolutely ridiculous on the ground that no person would be likely to picket the house of a person not concerned in the trade dispute was hardly in accordance with the experience of a person like himself, who had had something to do with strikes.
SIR JOHN WALTON: I said for the matter of persuading.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid he was dealing with the first speech of the Attorney-General, in which he said there was nothing in the Amendment, because he could not conceive anyone being so foolish as to go to the house of a man who had no concern in the dispute at all. It must be perfectly well known to people who had had anything to do with strikes that isolated cases had ocurred in which persons had gone to houses for the purpose of obtaining or communicating information. Even in his second speech, the Attorney-General was not putting the issue clearly and directly before the Committee. Isolated cases had occurred where pickets had gone to the houses of people not directly connected with the dispute. Take the case of a
1646
young labourer who was working and living somewhere near the works, and the picket went to the mother or father, who might live some little distance away, for the purpose of obtaining information, that being the best place to get information about the young man in question. That was a power which might or might not be right. He was not going into the merits of the dispute, but the hon. and learned Gentleman must know that unless this Amendment were accepted it was possible for the picket to do it. The issue before the Committee was this: if they passed this Amendment they restricted the power of pickets to go into a lodging-house or into a house where a man happened to be. That was the restrictive power of this Amendment. If they did not pass this Amendment, then the pickets had the power, not only to go to the house, or the place where the man might be, but to go to his relatives any distance away, and seek to obtain information from that man's relatives. The view had been expressed on the Opposition side that that was a power which ought to be stopped because it was liable to abuse. He was not, however, dealing with that point now. What he was protesting against was the way in which the Attorney General was dealing with the whole of the Bill. He had no right to treat the Amendment in such an off-hand fashion.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the hon. and learned Member, who apparently had come from a more heated atmosphere, and criticised his conduct to-day, had completely misapprehended the whole question. He did not seek to draw any distinction between attending for the purpose of persuasion, or for the purpose of giving or receiving information. What he wanted to point out was that it would clearly be an illegal thing for a picket to attend a house in order to exercise coercion.
SIR E. CARSONsaid he did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman yet comprehended the point they had made. He entirely agreed with the Attorney-General that if the words, "reasonable manner" meant what he said, neither at the house of anyone concerned nor at the house of anyone unconcerned could they proceed to exercise coercion.

1647
Therefore, it necessarily followed that they could not go to the house of a person unconcerned in the trade dispute for the purpose of exercising that coercion; but what they objected to was that they could go to the house of a person unconcerned in a dispute, not for the purpose of exercising coercion but for the purposes of picketing at all. What was the justification for going to their houses? Let them leave these people alone. Let it not be possible, because
for some reason a trade union felt hostile to some person outside the dispute, that therefore they should be allowed to go down and exercise this right which would be exercised for the first time. The Amendment was one they ought to press and divide upon.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 23; Noes, 224. (Division List No. 306.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood,Rt.HnSirAlex.F.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Pease,Herbert Pike (Darlington

Balearres, Lord

Craik, Sir Henry

Rawlinson. John Frederick Peel

Balfour.Rt. Hn.A.J.(City Lond

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Smith,F. E.(Liverpool,Walton)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Forster, Henry William

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Valentia, Viscount

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hamilton, Marquess of

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Castlereagh, Viscount

Morpeth, Viscount

Lord Robert Cecil and Sir

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Frederick Banbury.

NOES.

Agnew, George William.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Alden, Percy

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Paneras,W

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Astbury, John Meir

Cooper, G. J.

Hazleton, Richard

Atherley-Jones, L.

Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Henderson,J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury,E.)

Cowan, W. H.

Henry, Charles S.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Higham, John Sharp

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Crooks, William

Hills, J. W.

Barnard, E. B.

Crossley, William J.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Barnes, G. N.

Cullinan, J.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Horniman, Emslie John

Beale, W. P.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hudson, Walter

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N.

Hyde, Clarendon

Bell, Richard

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Illingworth, Percy H.

Bellairs. Carlyon

Duckworth, James

Jacoby, James Alfred

Benn,Sir J.Williams(Devonp'rt

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Jardine, Sir J.

Bertram, Julius

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Jenkins, J.

Billson, Alfred

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

Elibank, Master of

Jowett, F. W.

Brace, William

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Joyce, Michael

Brigg, John

Everett, R. Lacey

Kearley, Hudson E.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Fenwick, Charles

Kekewich, Sir George

Brooke, Stopford

Ferens, T. R.

Kelley, George D.

Brunner,J. F. L.(Lanes.,Leigh

Ffrench, Peter

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Burke, E. Haviland-

Flynn, James Christopher

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Laidlaw, Robert

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lambert, George

Buxton, Rt. Hn.SydneyCharles

Gill, A. H.

Lamont', Norman

Byles, William Pollard

Glover, Thomas

Leese,Sir JosephF. (Accrington)

Cameron, Robert

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lehmann, R. C.

Causton,Rt.HnRichardKnight

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough

Lewis, John Herbert

Channing, Francis Allston

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Lough, Thomas

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hall, Frederick

Lupton, Arnold

Cherry, Rt, Hon. R. R.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Lyell, Charles Henry

Clancy, John Joseph

Hardie,J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

Lynch, H. B.

Clarke, C. Goddard

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Cleland, J. W.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs)

Clough, W.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Macpherson, J. T.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Strachey, Sir Edward

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

Radford, G. H.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

M'Callum, John M.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Raphael, Herbert H.

Sullivan, Donal

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Summerbell, T.

Maddison, Frederick

Rees, J. D.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Mallet, Charles E.

Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

Thomasson, Franklin

Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)

Richardson, A.

Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E

Marnham, F. J.

Rickett, J. Compton

Thorne, William

Massie, J.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Toulmin, George

Masterman, C. F. G.

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

Ure, Alexander

Menzies, Walter

Robertson,Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

Verney, F. W.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Vivian, Henry

Montagu, E. S.

Robinson, S.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Mooney, J. J.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Wallace, Robert

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Walters, John Tudor

Morse, L. L.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Rose, Charles Day

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Murphy, John

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Napier, T. B.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton

Nicholls, George

Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Nicholson, Charles N(Doncaster

Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Nolan, Joseph

Sears, J. E.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Norman, Henry

Seely, Major J. B.

Wilkie, Alexander

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Shackleton, David James

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.

O'Grady, J.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

O'Malley, William

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton

Paul, Herbert

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Paulton, James Mellor

Snowden, P.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Whitley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Steadman, W. C.

SIR JOHN WALTONclaimed, "That the Question ' That the words of the clause to the end of page 1, line 20, stand part of the clause,' be now put."
Question put, "That the Question ' That the words of the clause to the end
of page 1, line 20, stand part of the clause,' be now put "
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 223; Noes, 26. (Division List No. 307.)

AYES.

Agnew, George William

Brunner, J.F.L.(Lancs.,Leigh)

Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

Alden, Percy

Burke, E. Haviland-

Crooks, William

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Crossley, William J.

Astbury, John Meir

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Cullinan, J.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Buxton, Rt. Hn.Sydney Charles

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Byles, William Pollard

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Baker, Joseph A.(Fiasbury, E.)

Cameron, Robert

Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras, N.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Channing, Francis Allston

Duckworth, James

Barnard, E. B.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Barnes, G. N.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Beale, W. P.

Clancy, John Joseph

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Clarke, C. Goddard

Elibank, Master of

Bell, Richard

Cleland, J. W.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Bellairs, Carlyon

Clough, W.

Everett, R. Lacey

Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Fenwick, Charles

Bertram, Julius

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Ferens, T. R.

Billson, Alfred

Collins,SirWm.J.(S. Pancras,W.

Ffrench, Peter

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Flynn, James Christopher

Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

Cooper. G. J.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Brace, William

Corbett,C. H.(Sussex, E. Grist'd

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Brigg, John

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Cowan, W. H.

Gill, A. H.

Glover, Thomas

MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)

Rose, Charles Day

Goddard, Daniel Ford

McVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Callum, John M.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

M'Kenna, Reginald

Schwann,Sir C.E.(Manchester)

Hall, Frederick

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Halpin, J.

Maddison, Frederick

Sears, J. E.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Mallet, Charles E.

Seely, Major J. B.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Mansfield, Harry (Northants)

Shackleton, David James

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T (Hawick B.)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Marnham, F. J.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Massie, J.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Menzies, Walter

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Hazleton, Richard

Molteno, Percy Alport

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Montagu, E. S.

Snowden, P.

Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)

Mooney, J. J.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Henry, Charles S.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Steadman, W. C.

Higham, John Sharp

Morse, L. L.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Strachey, Sir Edward

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Murphy, John

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Horniman, Emslie John

Napier, T. B.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Hudson, Walter

Nicholls, George

Sullivan, Donal

Hyde, Clarendon

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

Summerbell, T.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Nolan, Joseph

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Norman, Henry

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Jacoby, James Alfred

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Thomasson, Franklin

Jardine, Sir J.

O Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E.

Jenkins, J.

O'Grady, J.

Thorne, William

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Malley, William

Toulmin, George

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Verney, F. W.

Jowett, F. W.

Paul, Herbert

Vivian, Henry

Joyce, Michael

Paulton, James Mellor

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Wallace, Robert

Kekewich, Sir George

Power, Patrick Joseph

Walters, John Tudor

Kelley, George D.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Radford, G. H.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Laidlaw, Robert

Raphael, Herbert H.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire'

Lambert, George

Rees, J. D.

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Lamont, Norman

Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

Wilkie, Alexander

Lehmann, R. C.

Richardson, A.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Lewis, John Herbert

Rickett, J. Compton

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Lough, Thomas

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Lupton, Arnold

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Robertson,Sir G.Scott(Bradf'rd

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Lynch, H. B.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Robinson, S.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Macpherson, J. T.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt Hn.Sir AlexF.

Craik, Sir Henry

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Balcarres, Lord

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Balfour, Rt. Hn.A.J.(City Lond.

Forster, Henry William

Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hamilton, Marquess of

Valentia, Viscount

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hills, J. W.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES — Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. Evelyn Cecil.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Morpeth, Viscount

Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Question put accordingly.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 225 Noes, 24. (Division List No. 308.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Agnew, George William

Asquith,Rt. Hon. HerbertHenry

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Alden, Percy

Astbury, John Meir

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

O'Malley, William

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Barnard, F. B.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Paul, Herbert

Barnes, G. N.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Paulton, James Mellor

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Beale, W. P.

Hazleton, Richard

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Bell, Richard

Henderson,J.M. (Aber deen,W-

Price, C.E.(Edmburgh,Central)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Henry, Charles S.

Radford, G. H.

Benn,Sir J.Williams(Devonp'rt

Higham, John Sharp

Rainy, A. Rolland

Bertram, Julius

Hills, J. W.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Billson, Alfred

Hobart, Sir Robert

Rees, J. D.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th

Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

Horniman, Emslie John

Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

Brace, William

Hudson, Walter

Richardson, A.

Brigg, John

Hyde, Clarendon

Rickett, J. Compton

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Illingworth, Percy N.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Brooke, Stopford

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Robertson,Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs.,Leigh)

Jacoby, James Alfred

RobertsonSir G.Scott (Bradf'rd

Burke. E. Haviland

Jardine, Sir J.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Jenkins, J.

Robinson, S.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Buxton,Rt. Hn. Sidney Charles

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Cameron, Robert

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Rose, Charles Day

Causton,Rt.Hn.Richard Knight

Jowett, F. W.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Channing, Francis A lston

Joyce, Michael

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Kearley, Hudson E.

Schwann,Sir C.E.(Manchester)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Kekewich, Sir George

Scott,A. H (Ashton-under-Lyne

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Kelley, George D.

Sears, J. E.

Clancy, John Joseph

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Seely, Major J. B.

Clarke, C. Goddard

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Shackleton, David James

Cleland, J. W.

Laidlaw, Robert

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Clough, W.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lambert, George

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Lamont, Norman

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Collins,Sir W.J.(S.Pancras,W.

Leese,Sir Joseph E.(Accrington

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lehmann, R. C.

Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim,S.)

Cooper, G. J.

Lewis, John Herbert

Snowden, P.

Corbett,C H (Sussex, E.Grinst'd

Lough, Thomas

Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph (chesh.)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lupton, Arnold

Steadman, W. C.

Cowan, W. H.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Strachey, Sir Edward

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Crooks, William

Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Crossley, William J.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Sullivan, Donal

Cullinan, J.

Macpherson, J. T.

Summerbell, T.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

MacVeagh,Jeremiah (Down,S.)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal,E.

Tennant,Sir Edward (Salisbury

Dickinson, W.H.(St Pancras,N.

M'Callum, John M.

Thomasson, Franklin

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Kenna, Reginald

Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset,E.

Duckworth, James

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Thorne, William

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Maddison, Frederick

Toulmin, George

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Mallet, Charles E.

Verney, F. W.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)

Vivian, Henry

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Marnham, F. J.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Elibank, Master of

Massie, J.

Wallace, Robert

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Masterman, C. F. G.

Walters, John Tudor

Everett, R. Lacey

Menzies, Walter

Walton, Sir John L.(Leeds, S.)

Fenwick, Charles

Molteno, Percy Alport

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Ferens, T. R.

Montagu, E. S.

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Ffrench, Peter

Mooney, J. J.

Ward W.Dudley(Southampton

Flynn, James Christopher

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Morse, L. L.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Whitehoad, Rowland

Fuller, John Michael F.

Murphy, John

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Gill, A. H.

Napier, T. B.

Wilkie, Alexander

Glover, Thomas

Nicholls, George

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Nicholson,ChariesN.(Donca t'r

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Nolan, Joseph

Wilson, John (Durham, Mill)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Norman, Henry

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Hall, Frederick

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wilson, W. T. (Westhonohlon)

Halpin, J.

O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease,

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

(O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Hardie,J.Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

O'Grady, J.

1654

1655

Acland-Hood,RtHn.SirAlex.F.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Rawlinson,John Frederick Peal

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton

Balfour, Rt Hn.A.J.(City Lond.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Valentia, Viscount

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hamilton, Marquess of

Bowies, G. Stewart

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES —Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. Evelyn Cecil.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Morpeth, Viscount

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Parkes, Ebenezer

Craik, Sir Henry

Pease, HerbertPike (Darlington

*SIR CHARLES DILKEmoved to insert in line 20 after "working"the words" and suck attending shall not be held to be a nuisance." He said the Amendment raised the question whether those who engage in picketing should be subject to the law of nuisance. Nuisance was an offence which could be dealt with in two different ways—a public nuisance by indictment and a private nuisance by injunction. It was by injunction that they would have to deal with it before the courts. This was the subject of a great deal of discussion before the Standing Committee, and a great deal of evidence was given in regard to it before the Commission. The principal witness on the law with relation to the subject was Mr. Askwith, K.C. Mr. Askwith's evidence extended over two or three different sittings of the Commission and was of extreme interest. In giving his original statement he said that peaceable-persuasion-picketing might be struck at as a nuisance under common law. He read the words of the Master of the Rolls and Lord Lindley to show that picketing might amount to a private nuisance, and be subject to injunction, or that it might be indicted as a public nuisance. He was examined by Mr. Arthur Cohen, who was one of the highest authorities on the subject, and in that examination he said that if peaceful persuasion was authorised by the Bill, and if a new sub-section were passed, it did not follow that it would prevent persons from taking action against picketing, and that an injunction might be obtained against workmen engaged in peaceful persuasion in respect of its being a nuisance. The matter was brought up on several subsequent occasions, and it was suggested that the Bill should contain a clause as to picketing on different lines from the clause now before the Committee, but very similar
1656
to a clause which was before the Commission in different Bills they examined. It was called Mr. Haldane's suggestion. Mr. Cohen put a whole series of questions to Mr. Askwith with regard to that suggestion. His answers were reported at page 37 of the evidence. Mr. Haldane's suggestion appeared to have been that picketing should be dealt with as a public or private nuisance, and that matter was pursued for some time. Mr. Askwith did not appear to understand the exact point put to him. He said that picketing was already a nuisance, and that those who engaged in it were liable to action for public and private nuisance, in the way both of indictment and injunction. Whether they should leave those engaged in peaceful picketing to be liable to four forms of prosecution—for molestation or obstruction, under the word "reasonably," Indictment for public nuisance, and injunction for private nuisance —was clearly a matter which ought to be raised on this clause, and it was for that reason that he ventured to move the Amendment to see what view the Government took upon it.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 20, after the word ' working,' to insert the words ' and such attending shall not be held to be a nuisance.'' —(Sir Charles Dilke.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he took it that the words proposed to be left out were necessary. His right hon. friend was no doubt right in saying that picketing in the sense in which that expression was understood before the passing of the more recent legislation in regard to trade disputes was under the common law of the nature of a nuisance, and that those

1657
who engaged in it were liable to a prosecution or an action. Under the Act of 1875 the only authorisation of picketing was by way of qualification of the section which made it an unlawful act for any person to watch or beset. This Bill put picketing upon an entirely new footing. It was a distinct declaration that certain proceedings should be lawful, and it was perfectly clear if the framework of the clause was considered that any acts which came within its scope were lawful acts; and if they were lawful acts they were lawful for all purposes, and they could not say that certain acts which were lawful acts could be deemed to be a nuisance, because a nuisance was an unlawful act, and therefore they would have a contradiction in terms. It followed that any picketing which was held to be peaceable and reasonable and which was conducted with the view of exercising rights under this section would be held by a Court to be lawful and could not be held to be a nuisance. It was unnecessary to say that conduct which Parliament declared to be lawful should not be unlawful in the sense of being a nuisance.
MR. SHACKLETONsaid he wished he could be satisfied with the assurance of the Attorney-General, but he was afraid he could not. The words of the old Act dealing with this question were fairly safe. The words were—
"Attending at or near a place where a person resides or works."
Peaceful persuasion under that clause had been held to be a nuisance. That was their difficulty. Justice Chitty stated—
'' Proof that the nuisance was peacefully to persuade other people would afford no defence for such an action."
At present, persons might be peacefully persuaded provided the method employed was not a nuisance to other people. That was the whole danger of the situation, and if these words were not accepted he was afraid they would confer certain powers by the clause which could be knocked out by a charge of nuisance.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEdrew attention to the fact that on page 11 of the Report of the Commission was set out the clause of the Bill of the Member for Spen Valley, and that clause began with the words—
" It shall be lawful."
The Commissioners added—
" although the evidence might be such as to constitute a nuisance."
They seemed to take the opposite view to the Attorney-General.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the Commissioners pointed out that it might be held to be a nuisance, but if they put the word "reasonable"In, and the Court held that the right was exercised in a reasonable way, it could not be a nuisance, because if it were a nuisance it could not be reasonable.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESdiffered from the Attorney-General, and said he was perfectly clear in his own mind that the objection urged by his right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean was well founded. The law did not authorise illegal acts. This section did not authorise illegal acts. Supposing they showed that either intimidation or a nuisance or molestation had been committed, the clause would not protect against an action. Therefore the clause was perfectly illusory and afforded no protection in respect of nuisance. The clause did nothing more than state what the existing law was, with the exception that it provided that they must also prove that the acts allowed were done in a reasonable manner. If the clause passed in its present form, therefore, trade unions would be worse off than before, because they would have to establish that picketing was conducted in a reasonable manner. He believed his right hon. friend's Amendment was good law and good sense.
MR. J. WARDgathered from the observations of the Attorney-General that he agreed that it was necessary to provide that picketing should not be treated as a nuisance, but that his contention was that the clause

1659
was already framed to meet that. But trade unionists were not satisfied that the clause as drafted did meet it. If the Attorney-General agreed with them in principle, what objection could he have to the inclusion of the words suggested in the Amendment? He hoped the question would be put to the vote and that those who at the General Election agreed
to restore trade unions to the position they occupied prior to the Taff Vale and other adverse judgments, would be found voting for the Amendment.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Ayes 122, Noes 127. (Division List No. 309.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Hall, Frederick

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh. Central)

Alden, Percy

Halpin, J.

Radford, G. H.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hardie,J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Balcarres, Lord

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'inpt'n

Barnard, E. B.

Hazleton, Richard

Richardson, A.

Barnes, G. N.

Heary, Charles S.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Beale, W. P.

Higham, John Sharp

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Bell, Richard

Hills, J. W.

Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester

Billson, Alfred

Hudson, Walter

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne)

Brace, William

Hyde, Clarendon

Seely, Major J. B.

Brooke, Stopford

Jacoby, James Alfred

Shackleton, David James

Burke, E. Haviland-

Jenkins, J.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton

Byles, William Pollard

Jowett, F. W.

Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)

Cameron, Robert

Joyce, Michael

Snowden, P.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kekewich, Sir George

Steadman, W. C.

Clancy, John Joseph

Kelley, George D.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Cleland, J. W.

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Sullivan, Donal

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Summerbell, T.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lehmann, R. C.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Cooper, G. J.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Thorne, William

Corbett, C.H.(Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs)

Toulmin, George

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Macpherson, J. T.

Verney, F. W.

Cowan, W. H.

Mac Veagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.)

Vivian, Henry

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Crooks, William

Maddison, Frederick

Walters, John Tudor

Cullinan, J.

M nfield, Harry (Northants)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Davies, Timothy (Fuham)

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Weir, James Galloway

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Mooney, J. J.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Morpeth, Viscount

Wilkie, Alexander

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Morrell, Philip

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Murphy, John

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Nicholls, George

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Nolan, Joseph

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Ffrench, Peter

O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Gill, A. H.

O'Grady, J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr. Fenwick.

Glover, Thomas

Parker, James (Halifax)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Power, Patrick Joseph

NOES

Acland-Hood.Rt Hn SirAlex.F.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Agnew-Hood, Rt Sir Alex. F.

Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

Buxton,Rt.Hn. Sydney Charles

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Asquith, Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry

Benn,Sir J.Williams(Devonp'rt

Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

Astbury, John Meir

Bertram, Julius

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury,E.)

Black,Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

Cheetham, John Fredrick

Balfour.Rt Hn.A. J.(CityLond.)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Brigg, John

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Banner, JohnJS. Harniood-

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Clarke, C. Goddard

Barrow, Percy(Bedford)

Brunner, J. F. L.(Lanes.,Leigh)

Clough, W.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Leese,Sir JosephF. (Accrington)

Robinson, S.

Craik, Sir Henry

Lewis, John Herbert

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Crossley, William J.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Roe, Sir Thomas

Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras, N.

Lough, Thomas

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lupton, Arnold

Rose, Charles Day

Duckworth, James

Lyell, Charles Henry

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Elibank, Master of

Lynch, H. B.

Sears, J. E.

Everett, R. Lacey

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.

Ferens, T. R.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Forster, Henry William

M'Callum, John M.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

M'Kenna, Reginald

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Mallet, Charles E.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Fuller, John Michael F.

Marks, G. Croyd on (Launceston

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Marnham, F. J

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Massie, J.

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisb'ry

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Menzies, Walter

Thomasson, Franklin

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Molteno, Percy Alport

Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E

Hamilton, Marquess of

Montagu, E. S.

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Morse, L. L.

Ure, Alexander

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Napier, T. B.

Valentia, Viscount

Haworth, Arthur A.

Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncaster

Wallace, Robert

Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen,W.)

Nield, Herbert

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

Illingworth, Percy H.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Whitehead, Rowland

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Paul, Herbert

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Jardine, Sir J.

Paulton, James Mellor

Wiles, Thomas

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Raphael, Herbert H.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rees, J. D.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Laidlaw, Robert

Rickett, J. Compton

Lambert, George

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

MR. KEIR HARDIEdesired to ask the Chairman's ruling upon a personal matter. In the Division Lobby while the division was being taken the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Chief Government Whip, sought to induce Members not to vote for the Amendment on the plea that if they did so the Government would move to report progress and certain consequences might follow. But that was a mere preliminary. The personal matter upon which he wished to ask the Chairman's ruling was that the hon. Gentleman said—
"If you vote for this Amendment you are playing this fellow's game—"
pointing to himself (Mr. Keir Hardie) when he said "this fellow." He wished to ask whether a personal remark of that kind was in order?
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that is a point of order.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: What is it then?
* THE CHAIRMAN: There is no threat of an improper character in saying
1662
that the Government would report progress in certain circumstances or in saying that "You are playing this fellow's game." It seems to me to come under the head of persuading peaceably and in a reasonable manner.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. GEORGE WHITELEY: The description of the conversation which the hon. Member has given is absolutely correct. It was the great necessity of avoiding an accident to the Bill which made me say so, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will take this incident to heart.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: I wish to ask why the Chief Whip does not think that as a matter of personal honour he should withdraw the offensive remark "This fellow."
MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: If the hon. Member thinks it offensive I will withdraw it. But it was not intended to be offensive.
*MR. CLAVELL SALTERhad an Amendment on the Paper to move—
"In page 1, line 20, after the word' working,' to insert the words ' provided that nothing in this section shall make it lawful to procure the breach of any contract or to act so as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of any person that violence will be used to him or his family, or damage be done to his property.' "
*THE CHAIRMANsaid the first part of the hon. Member's Amendment was in order, but the second part was not. It was in order down to the words "breach of contract."
*MR. CLAVELL SALTERaccordingly moved a proviso to the effect that nothing in this section should make it lawful to procure the breach of any contract. He said he wished to insert words which would make it clear that picketing should not be used for the purpose of inciting and procuring persons to break their contracts. When he had the honour of speaking on a previous occasion he pointed out that this Bill would have the effect of making it possible for pickets to incite people to break their contracts without punishment, and he thought the learned Solicitor-General dissented from that view. He then asked that words should be inserted in the Bill which would make the matter clear. He noticed that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean proposed to deal with this matter on Clause 3, and if it was left generally that a picket was allowed to solicit people to abstain from work when those people were under contract, the sentence would be ambiguous in the highest degree upon the point whether it would be unlawful to solicit persons to break their contracts. He would ask the Attorney-General whether following the declaration of the Solicitor-General he did not think it was desirable that this question should be dealt with, either in the form he suggested, or in some other and better form, in order to make it clear that the picketing and solicitation which were to be sanctioned by the clause should not be such as to procure breaches of contract.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 20, after the word ' working' to insert the words ' provided that nothing in I his section shall make it lawful to procure the breach of any contract.' "—Mr. Clavell Salter.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he could not accept the Amendment. He had previously explained to the Committee why he could not do so. He did not think the Amendment would be in the interests of fair play and free speech, and it would make the application of the clause exceedingly difficult. The hon. Member for Derby told the Committee that he went down to a town in South Wales to persuade a number of railway employees, who had been recruited in the East End, not to interfere with the strike, and he made a speech to them at the station, and that it turned out, although he had no knowledge of the fact, that these men were brought down under a contract by the company, and were bound to work during the strike. He did not think this Amendment was in the interests of free speech which might be inspired by a desire to get fair play. On these considerations he had come to the conclusion that he could not accept the Amendment.
SIR E. CARSONsaid he found very great difficulty in ascertaining either what was the view of the Attorney-General on this Amendment, or what was the meaning of the section. He could not say whether this section would threaten or persuade men to break their contracts or not, but he thought it was a clause that must bring very great difficulty to any tribunal before which it might come. If he were a younger lawyer than he was he would be delighted with it. He really thought they ought to make this thing clear. They were divided very sharply about this question and he did not hesitate in the least to put his own views. What was the use of passing a section in this Bill which would cost years of argument and hundreds of pounds to take it up to the House of Lords to decide exactly what this House meant to settle in this matter. If they were

1665
going to legitimise nuisance or crime or anything illegal let them say so in plain terms. As sure as this clause was passed what would happen would be that they would find these questions coming before the Courts; they would be argued at great length and the Courts would decide. The Courts might decide it in a way the Government did not intend and then they would have hon. Members coming down and saying, "It is all the fault of the. Courts who have made a law we did not intend to make." That was a very unfair thing to say of the Courts, because they put these things in such a manner that it might be fairly said to mean that one was only to persuade a man not to break a contract or to be open to the construction that the man was at once to cease work and to disregard his contract. If the Courts were asked to find out what it was this House of Commons determined they would always assume that anything that had hitherto been illegal was still illegal, unless this House said in the plainest possible terms that they intended to
alter it; the Courts could only alter it in the very narrowest way, because they would naturally say the House of Commons could not have intended to make legal that which had hitherto been illegal. He once heard a Judge when construing a section of an Act say—
"As regards this Act of Legislature I am in the position of a person trying to construe the will of an illiterate testator. I cannot make out what he meant, and he is not here for me to ask."
That was exactly the case here. If the House desired to authorise a person to break his contract it ought to say so. He was not going to argue the question, but he did say in all sincerity that there was an important and difficult question of law arising on this point, and he thought the House ought to decide the matter for itself one way or the other.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 29; Noes, 231. (Division List No. 310.)

AYES

Acland-Hood, Sir Alex. F.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Balcarres, Lord

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Parkes, Ebenezer

Balfour, Rt. Hn.A.J.(City Lond.

Du Cros, Harvey

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Forster, Henry William

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Gordon,J. (Londonderry, South

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hamilton, Marquess of

Valentia, Viscount

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Salter and Mr. Evelyn Cecil.

Cave, George

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Nield, Herbert

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Brace, William

Cleland, J. W.

Agnew, George William Alden, Percy

Brigg, John Brocklehurst, W. B.

Clough, W. Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Allen,A.Acland (Christchurch)

Brooke, Stopford

Collins.Sir Wm.J.(S. Pancras, W

Asquith, Rt. Hn.Herbert Henry

Brunner, J.F.L.(Lancs.,Leigh)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Astbury, John Meir

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Cooper, G. J.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Corbett,C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Cowan, W. H.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Barnard, E. B.

Buxton, Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles

Crooks, William

Barnes, G. N.

Cameron, Robert

Crossley, William J.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Cullinan, J.

Beale, W. P.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Bell, Richard

Causton, Rt. Hn. RichardKnight

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Bellairs Carlyon

Cheetham, John Frederick

Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras,N.

Benn,Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Dilke Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Bertram, Julius

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Duckworth, James

Billson, Alfred

Clancy, John Joseph

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Black, Arthur W.(Bedford shire

Clarke. C. Goddard

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lewis, John Herbert

Rose, Charles Day

Elibank, Master of

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rowlands, J.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lough, Thomas

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Everett, R. Lacey

Lupton, Arnold

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Fenwick, Charles

Lyell, Charles Henry

Schwann, SirC. E. (Manchester)

Ferens, T. R.

Lynch, H. B.

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Firench, Peter

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Sears, J. E.

Flynn, Peter Christopher

Macdonald,J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Seaverns, J. H.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Seely, Major J. B.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Maclean, Donald

Shackleton, David James

Fuller, John Michael F.

Macpherson, J. T.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Howick B.)

Gill, A. H,

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

MaeVoigh, Charles (Donegal,E.)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Glover, Thomas

M'Callum, John M.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Gooch, George Peabody

M'Kenna, Reginald

Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim,S.)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Killop, W.

Snowdon, P.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Hall, Frederick

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Steadman, W. C.

Halpin, J.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

Marnham, F. J.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Massie, J.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Menzies, Walter

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Sullivan, Donal

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Montagu, E. S.

Summerbell, T.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Morrell, Philip

Tonnant,Sir Edward (Salisbury

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Morse, L. L.

Thomasson, Franklin

Hazleton, Richard

Murphy, John

Thompson, J.W.H. (Somerset, E

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Napier, T. B.

Thorne, William

Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)

Nicholls, George

Toulmin, George

Henry, Charles S.

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

Ure, Alexander

Higham, John Sharp

Nolan, Joseph

Verney, F. W.

Hills, J. W.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Vivian, Henry

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tiperary Mid)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Grady, J.

Wallace, Robert

Hudson, Walter

O'Malley, William

Walters, John Tudor

Hyde, Clarendon

Parker, James (Halifax)

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.;

Illingworth, Percy H.

Paul, Herbert

Walton, Joseph (Barnslcy)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Paulton, James Mellor

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Jacoby, James Alfred

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton

Jardine, Sir J.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Weir, James Galloway

Jenkins, J.

Power, Patrick Joseph

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire'

Johnson, John (Giteshead)

Price, C.E.(Edinburgh, Central

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Johnson. W. (Nuneaton)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Whitehead, Rowland

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Raphael, Herbert H.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Jowett, F. W.

Rae, Russel' (Gloucester)

Wiles, Thomas

Joyce, Michael

Rees, J. D.

Wilkie, Alexander

Kearley, Hudson E.

Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Kekewich, Sir George

Richards, T. F.(Wolvorhampt'n

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Kelley, George D.

Richardson, A.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Rickett, J. Compton

Wilson, P. W.(St. Pancras, S.)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Laidlaw, Robert

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Robertson, J.M.(Tyneside)

Lambert, George

Robinson, S.

Lamont, Norman

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease

Lees, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Roe, Sir Thomas

Lehmann, R. C.

SIR JOHN WALTONclaimed, "That the Question ' That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill' be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 231; Noes, 31. (Division List No. 311.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Agnew, George William

Astbury, John Meir

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Alden, Percy

Atherley-Jones, L.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Barnard, E. B.

Hardie,J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

O'Malley, William

Barnes, G. N.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Paul, Herbert

Beale, W. P.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Paulton, James Mellor

Bell, Richard

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Pearce, Robert(Staffs. Leek)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Haworth, Arthur A.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Benn,Sir J.Williams(Devonp'rt

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Price,C. E.(Edinburgh,Central)

Benn,W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo.

Hazleton, Richard

Radford, G. H.

Bertram, Julius

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Billson, Alfred

Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen,W.)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Black,Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

Henry, Charles S.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Brace, William

Higham, John Sharp

Rees, J. D.

Brigg, John

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Horniman, Emslie John

Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

Brooke, Stopford

Hudson, Walter

Richardson, A.

Brunner,J. F. L.(Lancs.,Leigh)

Hyde, Clarendon

Rickett, J. Compton

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Jacoby, James Alfred

Robertson,Sir G.Scott(Bradfrd

Burnyeat, W. J. I).

Jardine, Sir J.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Jenkins, J.

Robinson, S.

Buxton,Rt.Hu.Sydney Charles

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Byles, William Pollard

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Cameron, Robert

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Jowett, F. W.

Rose, Charles Day

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Joyce, Michael

Rowlands, J.

Channing, Francis Allston

Kearley, Hudson E.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Kekewich, Sir George

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Kelley, George D.

Schwann, SirC. E.(Manchester)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Scott, A.H. (Ashton underLyne

Clancy, John Joseph

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Sears, J. E.

Clarke, C. Goddard

Laidlaw, Robert

Seaverns, J. H.

Cleland, J. W.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Seely, Major J. B.

Clough, W.

Lambert, George

Shackleton, David James

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lamont, Norman

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W.

Leese,Sir JosephF.(Accrington)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lehmann, R. C.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Cooper, G. J.

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Lewis, John Herbert

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim,S.)

Cowan, W. H.

Lough, Thomas

Snowden, P.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Lupton, Arnold

Stanley, Hn. A.Lyulph(Chesh.)

Crooks, William

Lyell, Charles Henry

Steadman, W. C.

Crossley, William J.

Lynch, H. B.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Cullinan, J.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Mackarness, Frederic C

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Maclean, Donald

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N.

Macpherson, J. T.

Sullivan, Donal

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Summerbell, T.

Duckworth, James

MacVeigh. Charles (Donegal,E.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

M'Callum, John M.

Tennant,Sir Edward (Salisbury

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Thomasson, Franklin

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

M'Killop, W.

Thompson,J.W.H. (Somerset, E.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Thorne, William

Klibank, Master of

Mallet, Charles E.

Toulmin, George

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Ure, Alexander

Everett, R. Lacey

Marnham, F. J.

Verney, F. W.

Fenwick, Charles

Massie, J.

Vivian, Henry

Ferens, T. R.

Menzies, Walter

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Ffrench, Peter

Molteno, Percy Alport

Wallace, Robert

Flynn, James Christopher

Montagu, E. S.

Walters, John Tudor

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds,S.)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Morrell, Philip

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Morse, L. L.

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Gill, A. H.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Ward, W.Dudley(Southampton

Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

Napier, T. B.

Weir, James Galloway

Glover, Thomas

Nicholls, George

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Gooch, George Peabody

Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncaster

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Nolan, Joseph

Whitehead, Rowland

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Hall, Frederick

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Wiles, Thomas

Halpin, J.

O'Grady, J.

1670

1671

Wilkie, Alexander

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras,S.)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

NOES.

Balcarres, Lord

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone,

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Balfour,Rt Hn. A. J.(CityLond.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Parkes, Ebenezer

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Du Cros, Harvey

Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Forster, Henry William

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gordon, J.(Londonderry,South

Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Thomson, W. Mitchell - (Lanark)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Cave, George

Hills, J. W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Cavendish,Rt.Hon.Victor C.W.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Nield, Herbert

(Question put, "That the Question ' That the clause stand part of the Bill' be now put."
Question put accordingly.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 238; Noes, 31. (Division List No. 312.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork,N.E.)

Cooper, G. J.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Agnew, George William

Corbett,C. H(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen,W.)

Alden, Percy

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Higham, John Sharp

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Cowan, W. H.

Hills, J. W.

Astbury, John Meir

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Crooks, William

Horniman, Emslie John

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Crossley, William J.

Hudson, Walter

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cullinan, J.

Hyde, Clarendon

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Barnard, E. B.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Issacs, Rufus Daniel

Barnes, G. N.

Dickinson,W.H.(St.Pancras,N.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Jardine, Sir J.

Beale, W. P.

Duckworth, James

Jenkins, J.

Beaumont, W. C. B.(Hexham)

Duncan,C. (Barrow-in- Furness

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Bell, Richard

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

Benn,SirJ.Williams (Dovonp'rt

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Jowett, F. W.

Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.

Elibank, Master of

Joyce, Micheal

Bertram, Julius

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Kearley, Hudson E.

Billson Alfred

Everett, R. Lacey

Kekewich, Sir George

Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

Fenwick, Charles

Kelley, George D.

Brace, William

Ferens, T. R.

Kettle, Thomas Micheal

Brigg, John

Ffrench, Peter

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Flynn, James Christopher

Laidlaw, Robert

Brooke, Stopford

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs.,Leigh)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Lambert, George

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lamont, Norman

Burke, E. Haviland-

Gill, A. H.

Leese,SirJosephF.(Accrington)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Gladstone,Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

Lehmann, R. C.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Glover, Thomas

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Gooch, George Peabody

Lewis, John Herbert

Buxton,Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles

Grant, Corrie

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Byles, William Pollard

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Lough, Thomas

Cameron, Robert

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Lupton, Arnold

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hall, Frederick

Lyell, Charles Henry

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Halpin, J.

Lynch, H. B.

Channing, Francis Allston

Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Clancy, John Joseph

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Maclean, Donald

Clarke, C. Goddard

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Macpherson, J. T.

Cleland, J. W.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Clough, W.

Haworth, Arthur A.

MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal, E.)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hay, Hon. Claude George

M'Callum, John M.

Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras, W

Hazel, Dr. A. F.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hazleton, Richard

M'Killop, W.

Mallet, Charles E.

Richardson, A. '

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Rickett, J. Compton

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Markham, Arthur Basil

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Thomasson, Franklin

Marnham, F. J.

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)

Thompson, J.W.H. (Somerset,E.

Massie,J.

Robertson, SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

Thorne, William

Monzies, Walter

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Toulmin, George

Molteno, Percy Alport

Robinson, S.

Ure, Alexander

Montagu, E. S.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Verney, F. W.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Roe, Sic Thomas

Vivian, Henry

Morrell, Philip

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Morse, L. L.

Rose, Charles Day

Wallace, Robert

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Rowlands, J.

Walters, John Tudor

Murphy, John

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Napier, T. B.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Nicholls, George

Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Nicholson, CharlesN.(Doncast'r

Scott, A.H.(Ashton-under-Lyne

Ward,W.Dudley(Southampton

Nolan, Joseph

Sears, J. E.

Weir, James Galloway

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Seaverns, J. H.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

O' Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Seely, Major J. B.

White, Partick (Meath, North)

O'Grady, J.

Shackleton, David James

Whitehead, Rowland

O'Malley, William

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wiles, Thomas

Paul, Herbert

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wilkie, Alexander

Paulton, James Mellor

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Snowden, P.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh,Central

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Radford, G. H.

Sleadman, W. C.

Yoxall, James Henry

Rainy, A. Rolland

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Rees, J. D.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th

Sullivan, Donal

Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

Summerbell, T.

NOES.

Acland-Hood,Rt.Hn.SirAlexF.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Balcarres, Lord

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Balfour,Rt.Hn.A.J.(CityLond.)

Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone,E.)

Morpeth, Viscount

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Douglas,Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Nield, Herbert

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Du Cros, Harvey

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Beach, Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

Fletcher, J. S.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Bowles, G. Stewart

Forster, Henry William

Pease,HerbertPike (Darlington

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Gordon, J. (Londonderry,South

Valentia, Viscount

Cave, George

Hamilton, Marquess of

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Rawlinson and Mr. Salter.

Cavendish, Rt.Hon.VictorC.W.

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Clause 3:—
*MR. BOWLESmoved an Amendment on page 1, line 24, to leave out the words ' contemplation or.' He could not understand why those words were placed in this clause at all. In an ordinary trade dispute any act done which interfered with the trade or employment of some person, or, what was far more important, the right of some person to dispose of his labour as he willed, now gave rise to action as a tort. It was proposed by this clause to differentiate and withdraw that kind of remedy from the person who was so interfered with. Was it necessary to extend that
1674
immunity altogether outside the four corners of an existing trade dispute, to the illimitable horizon of a contemplated trade dispute? In a former debate he said that hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, and the trade union leaders generally, were always contemplating trade disputes. [Cries of "No."] Since then he had had the advantage of referring to an interesting article written by the hon. Member for Leicester, published in the National Review, upon this very Bill. The hon. Member said in that article—
" A trade union is organised primarily for industrial purposes. Its essential characteristic is that of a fighting machine. No

1675
other feature it may have acquired in the course of time can be allowed to obliterate that…‥No one has any right to expect that intelligent and clear-sighted workers will be cajoled into any other view of trade unionism than that it is an engine of war performing humane and beneficent functions during peace."
He supposed that whilst a trade union was contemplating a trade dispute would be a time of industrial peace. He could understand giving power of an altogether extraordinary character to trade unions of masters and men during an industrial war, but he could not understand upon this clause any more than upon the other why they should extend those immunities, the only defence of which was that they were necessary because of the extraordinary conditions of industrial war, to a time which was admittedly one of industrial peace during which these disputes were merely in contemplation. The words were extremely wide. The view of the hon. Member for Leicester was that trade unions were engines of war.
THE CHAIRMAN: May I point out to the hon. Member that what this clause deals with is "an act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute." the hon. Member is talking about trade unions, and a trade union is not a person.
*MR. BOWLEScontended that a member of a trade union was a person. The avowed policy of the clause was to apply only to a time of industrial war, and he did not understand why it should be extended to the mere contemplation of a trade dispute. He hoped the learned Attorney-General would be able to explain why this very wide extension of this principle was considered necessary.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid this clause was inserted to meet the suggestion that it would be well to give legislative effect to the decision of the House of Lords in the case of Allen v. Flood. The Commissioners had themselves framed a provision even wider than that contained in the present Bill, and the words "In contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute "were a restriction
1676
which the Commissioners suggested as an improvement of the law. The majority Report stated—
"That an Act should be passed to declare that an individual shall not be liable for doing any act not in itself an actionable tort only on the ground that it is an interference with another person's trade, business, or employment."
He took that view himself. He thought the hon. Member for Norwood would acknowledge that he had discussed at considerable length the effect of the words "contemplation or" In connection with Clause 1, and in regard to this Amendment he had used much the same arguments. Consequently he had repeated the answer which he gave upon an earlier Amendment.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he did not want to prolong this discussion in regard to the words "contemplation or." He understood that it was not proposed to alter the law at all by this section, but the Attorney-General merely wished to make the law clear as it had been laid down in the Courts.
*MR. BOWLESsaid he remained of the same opinion, but as he did not desire to detain the Committee, he asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The next Amendment stood in the name of Mr. Clavell Salter as follows:—
"In page 1, line 15, after the word ' dispute,' to insert the words ' between employers and workmen.'"
*MR. CLAVELL SALTERsaid he moved an Amendment in regard to this matter on the first clause. It was defeated by a substantial majority and he did not desire to take up the time of the Committee in moving this Amendment. The Committee would remember that on the occasion of the discussion of the other Amendment the Attorney-General admitted the necessity of defining "trade dispute," and said he would consider the matter. He did not know whether it would be convenient for the hon. and learned Gentleman now to give the definition. He thought it would be of great assistance to know what were the terms of the definition of "trade dispute" which he proposed to incorporate in the Bill.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member had better move, as there is nothing before the Committee.
*MR. CLAVELL SALTER: Then I beg to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 15, after the word ' dispute,' to insert the words ' between employers and workmen.'"—(Mr. Glavell Salter.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he could not formally at this stage give a definition in reply to a question of this kind. He said he would do so on the Report stage, and he certainly would.
*MR. CLAVELL SALTERasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD R. CECILmoved to leave out the words '' as a tort." He did not know the meaning of the words as used here, and he did not like to assent to the inclusion of words in a Bill of this kind unless he knew what they meant. He could not understand how an act could be actionable otherwise than as a tort. He would be glad to be instructed on the matter.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 25, to leave out the words ' as a tort.' "—(Lord R. Cecil.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he could not see how it could be actionable as a tort under this clause. He could not accept the Amendment.
LORD R. CECILsaid he did not desire to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he did not know whether the Attorney-General was inclined to accept the Amendment of which he had given notice, to insert after
1678
only"the words "That it induces some other person to break a contract of employment or." If he was not pre pared to accept it he must proceed to argue it.
SIR JOHN WALTON: I am willing to accept it.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he understood that from his previous speech.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 26, after the word 'only ' to insert the words ' that it induces some other person to break a contract of employment, or.' "—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
LORD R. CECILsaid he strongly held that these words did make this a different clause indeed, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean considered it better not to explain, being an old Parliamentary hand, how far the words went. Here they were proposing to say that provided an act, which unquestionably would be actionable under other circumstances, was done in furtherance of a trade dispute, it was not to be actionable whether it was done by a trade union or anybody else. Any act done with the view of inducing another to break his contract was to be free from any action. That was a very serious proposition indeed. It would make a considerable difference in the circumstances which he thought should be actionable. It would make an enormous difference in a large number of commercial transactions.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: It is quite recent law.
LORD R. CECILsaid it had been law for more than half a century now. The right hon. Baronet said it was quite recent law. That only meant that it was so declared, and that the point had never arisen before. It was always the law, and that was the assumption they had to make. It was only the first time that the Courts had had it brought before them. It was an important and a far-reaching

1679
matter, and he did hope that the Attorney-General would not assent to the insertion of the words at five o'clock on a Friday afternoon.
MR. CAVEsaid this was a serious matter. He had the Report of the Commission before him, and he found that the Commission expressly negatived this very Amendment. It was directly contrary to the recommendation of the Commission, and he would suggest to the Committee that it should not be accepted without much consideration.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid the Amendment moved by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean was not only absolutely against the recommendation of the Commission, but absolutely against the common law, and so far from it being applied merely in the case of trade disputes, it altered the whole of the general law. The matter did not stop there. It was not only against the advice of the Commissioners and the common law, but it was against the view the Attorney-General formerly expressed. The right hon. Baronet might not have been present when the Attorney-General said it was against his opinion. What he said to his hon. and learned friend a moment ago was that this clause was declaratory, and that it involved no amendment of the existing law. No one could contend that that opinion was in harmony with the acceptance of the right hon. Baronet's Amendment.
*MR. RUFUS ISAACSthought there was some confusion in regard to this matter. Surely no one would state that it was against the common law merely to induce some other person to break a contract of employment, though it was actionable to do so maliciously. This clause did not touch that. All it said was that merely to induce a person to break a contract of employment was not actionable. He should just give an instance to bring home to the mind of the Committee the distinction between the two classes of cases. He instanced a man whose daughter was engaged to be married— a promise which was a contract at
1680
common law. Suppose after the promise of marriage the father came to the conclusion that it would be very undesirable that his daughter should marry the man. There was no ground in law, nothing had happened which would justify a breach of contract in the ordinary sense, but nevertheless there were circumstances which plainly indicated to the father that it was desirable his daughter should not marry this man to whom she was engaged under a valid contract at common law, and he induced her to break the contract which she had made to marry the man; and therefore he persuaded he daughter—persuaded her with effect, which was inducing— to break the contract by refusing to marry. Thereupon, if the view of the law was as stated by the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, an action could be brought by the man against the father for having unlawfully induced his daughter to break the contract. The father would say in answer, "Well, I thought it was my duty to advise my daughter to break this contract, which could not possibly lead to a happy marriage." thereupon, if the jury came to the conclusion that he acted honestly under a sense of duty, he did not believe an action could be maintained. That was an instance of inducing a person to break a contract, but it was an instance of doing it not maliciously. Again, suppose a particular work which was carried on by the men of a union was most injuriously affecting the health of the men. Thereupon the trade union leaders said to the men, "It is true you are under contract to give a month's notice, but if you wait to serve that month the result will be that you may not all be alive at the end of the month, and therefore what we advise you to do is to break your contracts and come out, and let an action be brought by the employers against us, the officials of the union, for having induced you to break your contracts."
SIR F. BANBURY: They would not do it.
*MR. RUFUS ISAACSsaid he quite agreed. They would not do it, and

1681
why? Because it was only inducing a person to break a contract of employment, but if it was maliciously inducing a person to break a contract of employment then it was actionable. It had been laid down by the Courts of law that it was actionable to induce a man to break a contract if the inducement was malicious; and the Courts had said that maliciously to induce a person to break a contract meant to induce him to do it without just cause or excuse. Where, he thought, there was a difficulty —and he was afraid always must be a difficulty in the present state of our law—was to determine on which side of the law the inducement was to fall, whether it was with or without just cause or excuse. The trade union representatives would remember a case, in which this point was raised, which went to the House of Lords, when the matter was discussed at great length. The point then was in respect of the action taken by the South Wales Miners' Federation in inducing men to break their contracts of employment in order to restrict the output of coal, so that they might keep up the rate of wage, which it was their duty to maintain. The question was whether that was a malicious inducement to break a contract. There was considerable divergence of opinion on the point, which he might illustrate by saying that, in the first Court it was held that these men having acted honestly and done what they conceived was right in pursuance of their duty as members of the trade union, their action could not be held to be malicious, and the case was decided in favour of the trade union. On appeal, however, it was held by the majority of the Court of Appeal and by the House of Lords that these circumstances did not afford just cause or excuse. In that case the tribunal was pressed very hard, both in the Court of Appeal and in the House of Lords, to explain what they thought would be just cause or excuse in the case of a trade union; but the Courts contented themselves with saying that in their view this particular case did not fall within the lines of being an inducement with just cause and excuse. He had only referred to these cases for the purpose of pointing out to the Committee
1682
that what they were asked to do by the insertion of these words was not to change the law unless they inserted also in that same clause the word maliciously, which the right hon. Baronet did not propose to insert, and which had not been accepted by the Attorney-General. The clause would, if it was intended to change the law, have to be so amended as to read after "only," "that it maliciously induces some other person to break a contract of employment."In his view the words proposed to be inserted would not be construed by the; Courts as changing the law, but would be held as the remaining parts of the clause admittedly were, merely declaratory of the law.
SIR E. CARSONsaid that what he understood from the hon. Gentleman was that the words made no change at all. But it had been held that if they intentionally procured a man, he did not use the word "maliciously" at all, but if they did it intentionally and without some just cause or excuse they did then give rise to something that was actionable. What he wanted to know was, was the Amendment before them not intended to cover or relieve a case where a trade union, or any person, in the course of a trade dispute intentionally brought about a breach of contract. If it was only going to cover a case where it was a breach of contract lawfully brought about, and if all these words meant was that it should be lawful hereafter to do what had hitherto been lawful, then he would not oppose the insertion of the words; but his own opinion was that there would be a very strong argument upon the words hereafter, and how it would be decided he did not think any lawyer could say.
*MR. SHACKLETONsaid that so far as the legal gentlemen were concerned they might argue the point for an hour, but he and his friends knew this matter from experience. He would give an instance which occurred to himself, and he thought the Committee would realise that this was a case which ought to be covered. In this case, after considerable delay and after every effort to bring about a settlement, they had a strike in a Lancashire

1683
town. The dispute was not about wages; it was about the quality of the material supplied to the operators. They endeavoured to get compensation for the bad material and they failed. Eventually the weavers themselves demanded that they should cease work rather than go on as they were, and the union had to consent to this and to serve notice in a proper manner. The employers immediately sent out a circular, advertised in the newspapers, and placarded the town all round to this effect—
" Wanted, weavers for—mill. Standard list of wages paid."
No operative who had been out of work for two years would refuse to rush to the firm for work where the employer had declared that the trade union rate of wages was paid. As the result of that advertisement they got the workmen. As secretary he claimed the right to call a meeting of those weavers and explained to them, "You have been brought here under a wrong impression. The dispute is not about wages at all, but about bad material, which has in effect reduced wages. We ask you to consider whether it is a fair tiling for you to come down here to take positions on information of this kind which is only part of the truth and not altogethertrue." He proceeded no further and said not another word to those weavers, but the effect of that statement of the other side of the case was that they refused to go on any longer or to assist the employer in his effort to force on the old employees bad material, and they broke the contract. They were under a contract to give seven or fourteen days notice. Was he, for simply stating the facts of the case in that way, to be held responsible as an individual? It had been held to be illegal to induce those people to break their contracts, and therefore he thought the Committee would fully realise that it was unreasonable to put them in such a position that they would be landed in serious consequences for simply stating the facts of the case. In that case, however, he left these, people to decide for themselves whether they would break the contract. He knew how risky it was under the law as it then stood and he refused to go any further than simply
1684
state the true facts. He thought they were entitled to exemption in regard to an action such as that.
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he had not spoken after the right hon. Baronet moved the Amendment because that very question arose in the discussion on an earlier clause. It was then stated that the doctrine of Bowen v. Hall was inapplicable in the course of such disputes as were contemplated by this Bill, and he gave the Committee some reasons for supporting that view. In the first place that doctrine, novel as it was, depended entirely upon the consideration whether the persuasion used was malicious. The ordinary cases of persuasion of which they had had illustrations in the speech just made could scarcely be held to be malicious in any fair sense of the term, although so regarded by the law; that was to say, if the men conducting the strike were fairly stating the case of labourers who had struck to labourers who were imported they could scarcely call that proceeding malicious. There were many cases in which workmen were engaged in ignorance of or under some misrepresentation of the true nature of the dispute. If the law were to put a stop to every effort at persuasion in regard to men, however numerous, who had entered into contract under misapprehension, however grave, it would be impossible that these disputes should be conducted on equal terms.
*MR. HILLSdid not think the Amendment went far enough. Even if a person induced a man to break his contract for a malicious motive and for the exclusive benefit of the person who induced the breach, he held that justice would be satisfied by giving the person whose contract was broken a right of action against the person breaking it, and not against the third person who had induced the breach. In all these disputes a great many wrongs were done for which there was no legal remedy.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYmoved as an Amendment to the Amendment to insert after "induces" the words "otherwise than maliciously." the hon. Member for Reading had told them that the Amendment was of no practical effect,

1685
as it was covered by the law as it stood at present. Great harm was done by not making the clauses perfectly clear, and all he desired to do was to make distinct what was the opinion of the House of Commons on this point. This was not a question of a father seeking to prevent a daughter carrying out a foolish marriage contract. They were now dealing with grown-up men who were supposed to know what they were doing. Take the case of a colliery dispute. The men might go on strike because of a dispute about wages or something else. As a result the colliery might be flooded and hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of damage done. Surely it would be absolutely wrong to sanction such a thing as that. He wished by his Amendment to introduce a safeguard against such damage as that being done to the industry of the country.
Amendment proposed to the proposed, Amendment—
"After the word 'induces' to insert the words 'otherwise than maliciously',"—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that this was one of those cases in which there was a general agreement as to what ought to be done, but a difference as to how it should be done. He agreed that such action as that described by the hon. Member for Clitheroe ought not to involve a legal liability. On the other hand, he did not like to see introduced into an Act of Parliament words which, on the face of them, seemed to justify a wrongful act. A trade union official ought to be protected in making a true statement of facts; but to suggest that there were interests in the country which must be relieved from the ordinary incidence of the ordinary law was a thing repellent to every law-making assembly. All that it was desired to save would be saved by the Amendment to the Amendment, and he hoped, therefore, that favourable consideration would be given to the suggestion of his hon. friend.
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the cases which had been described by the hon.
1686
Member for Clitheroe would, he feared, be held by a court of law to be cases of malicious persuasion. Gye v. Lumley was the case of an opera manager inducing a singer under contract with a rival to break her contract and enter his employ. In that case it was held that there had been a seducing of the servant of one employer to join the service of another. Bowen v. Hall was a very similar case. Supposing they had the case of a trade union secretary or representative trying to induce a number of workmen brought in from an outside district to leave their work from a feeling of camaraderie, and they had entered into contracts for some months in advance— suppose he tried to induce them to leave their employment notwithstanding their contracts. What would be the argument? It would be said that the persuasion used had a self-regarding motive and was not done upon any ethical ground or under the obligation of any family or social tie, but that it was malicious within the meaning of the law. What the Government had felt was that this word '' maliciously "under the construction it received at present would prevent operations which were almost essential to a strike and which Parliament meant to sanction. Take the illustration given by the hon. Member for Derby, who went down into the country to explain the merits of his strike to a large number of men imported by the railway company whom he wished to join the men who had struck. He was enjoined by injunction by the High Court on the ground that he was maliciously inducing them to break their contracts. Under these circumstances the conduct of a strike was exceedingly difficult.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he could not argue as to the meaning which the courts of law would attribute to the word "maliciously," but the contention of the hon. and learned Gentleman entirely destroyed the meaning of the English language and made the business of the House exceedingly difficult, if not ridiculous.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESthought that this was an important and debatable Amendment, and agreed with much that had been said by the Opposition. To

1687
advise a person to break a contract was an illegal act and an action would lie for it to recover damages. The only defence was a justification. That was if a person could show that from family relation or that from a fiduciary position he gave the advice, then it was justified, and then only could he escape the consequences. The word "malicious" was entirely made meaningless. It had no meaning in law in regard to a civil action except in regard to a malicious prosecution case or an action for slander or libel. Malice in an ordinary action at civil law meant nothing except that the acts should be done intentionally, because if it was done inadvertently no action would lie. Supposing A advised B to break a contract, the Court would find: quite apart from the fact whether his act was malicious or not that an action ' would lie, and the only answer was that it was done in consequence of the relation between the parties such as that of father and son, who were entitled to give advice one to the other. What the Committee had to do was to make an exception in the case of trade unions, and to say that whereas all other persons might not advise breaches of contract with impunity trade unions might so advise. [Cries of "Oh!"] He adhered to his statement, and he should like to hear any lawyer get tip and point out in what respect it was not correct. It was sought to be laid down that in the case of a trade union it was not to be illegal to induce a person to break a contract, and he said that whereas in respect of other persons who induced a person to break a contract it was actionable, if this clause passed, in the case of trade unions it would not be actionable. Now was it desirable to allow this Amendment to pass? Taking it away from the narrow point of law he thought it desirable. Undoubtedly the action of trade unions in the case of strikes was to induce persons not to enter into the employment of an employer in whose works a strike existed, and the effect might be an inducement to break a contract although it was not intended to indicate breaking of contracts as a general line of policy. A very learned Judge, Lord Cairns, drew that distinction between advice for a general policy of breaking contracts and advice
1688
for the breach of an individual contract. The trade unions naturally trod the narrow dividing line between legality and illegality, and therefore it was necessary that the law should exercise great indulgence in respect to their liabilities and actions under the law. Therefore he thought that the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean should be accepted. The question of "maliciously" did not enter into the matter at all, the point being whether there was advice to beak a contract and whether that advice could or could not be justified upon the narrow lines which the Courts had laid down.
LORD R. CECILwished to call attention to the rather strange position in which they were placed owing to the speeches of the Attorney-General and of the hon. and learned Member for Reading. He wished to ask the Government a plain question: Did they think the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean unamended made any change in the present law? If it was going to make any change then it ought not to be put into this clause, because this clause had been recommended to the House as making no change in the law, and as being simply declaratory of the existing law. If the Government were, going to make any change in the law in this respect it ought not to be done in this portion of the Bill, but in a subsequent clause. If they were going to put in any change of the law here they were going to do something which they were not entitled to do. The present position appeared to be characteristic of the Government's attitude right through the Bill. They said to the Opposition, "You need not mind this: we assure you it makes no change or very little change in the existing law." then they turned to the Labour Members and said, "Now, we are giving you all that you ask." That was exactly what the Government had done in respect to this Amendment. The hon. and learned Attorney-General made a speech which might be taken either way; either that it made a change in the law or that it did not make any change in the law. But the

1689
hon. and learned Gentleman must make up his mind which horse he was going to ride. He must make up his mind as to whether this did or did not make any change in the law. The hon. and learned Gentleman had grounds for his statements, but he thought he could explain the meaning of the word "malicious"In this connection. Malicious meant with an indirect motive. It was a little complicated. The meaning was settled many years ago, and at the time that it was settled that was its ordinary meaning. It was not the lawyers who changed the meaning of the word "malicious," but the ordinary public. There was a very interesting decision with regard to this, under which it was laid down that "malicious" originally meant what the lawyers attributed to it but that the ordinary people had changed its meaning. In the process of time many words had changed their meaning, but the law being conservative by tradition had stuck to the original meaning of the word. He did not think it was fair to put it in the way in which the hon. and learned Gentleman put it. There must be something more than an inducement to break a contract. It must be done with some indirect motive. That was the nearest they could get to the true sense of the word "malicious."
SIR JOHN WALTON: That is not the view of Lord Herschell.
LORD R. CECILsaid he had not read his judgment, but if Lord Herschell took the other view he (Lord R. Cecil) was wrong. But his impression had always been that malicious meant some indirect motive. His objection to the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean was that it appeared to make a change in the law and it was put in with a view to inducing hon. Members to believe that a change in the law was made, but he believed no change was made; and that they would not get any improved position from it. The only effect of the Amendment would be that it would result in a great number of conflicting decisions which could not be settled except by the House of Lords at great expense. He hoped the Committee would reject the Amendment.
MR. MARKHAMsaid he would like to ask the hon. and learned Attorney-General
1690
one question on this Bill. He attached more importance to this clause than to any other clause of the Bill. What he could not understand about the clause was this: when this Bill was before the last Parliament the Solicitor - General of that day differed from the present learned Attorney-General on the construction of the language of the clause. Here in this case learned counsel on both sides of the House did the same thing. He wanted to put this simple question to the hon. and learned Attorney-General: supposing that he was connected in his business with a colliery and that a strike had taken place at a colliery which did not affect his mine. The trade union thought from the nature of the case it was necessary to have a strike at the adjacent colliery which had no interest in the dispute, but was thereby drawn into it. If in any one of his collieries the union drew out his men, had they a right under this clause to call his men out without giving him the usual fourteen days notice? Because if they did, what happened? He did not say that they would do it. The trade union leaders with whom he had had to deal had always dealt with him with the greatest moderation, and owing to their moderation had saved strikes. Hon. Members opposite who had no knowledge of these matters could not understand the assistance they obtained from trade union leaders in preventing strikes. But if trade unions were allowed to draw out men without any notice what would be the result? Was it reasonable that colliery men should throw down their tools without notice? If in the course of a dispute he imported blacklegs he admitted at once that he would have no objection to their proceeding to break their contracts. But where there was no dispute between him and his men, with whom he was on the happiest of terms, then he said it was wrong. He hoped under the circumstances that the hon. and learned Gentleman would give an assurance that he did not intend to adopt the language suggested on the opposite side of the House.
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he understood the illustration of the hon. Member to be this: A strike was going on, not owing to a dispute between the hon. Member and his own workmen, but

1691
in a neighbouring colliery, and the workmen in the employ of the hon. Member agreed to strike in order to support the action of other men in the employ of other masters. If they agreed to strike, they were engaging in a secondary strike, it being due to the action of men in the employ of other masters, whose proceedings it was desired to protect. There they had one of the conditions of a trade dispute. There they had it proposed that a number of men should leave their work and the question arose whether they should leave their work without giving notice. If they did so they were liable to the process of the law. This clause proposed to enact that if these men broke their contracts and it turned out that they had been induced to break them that an action should not be brought against the persons who had induced them to break their contract. To
make that conduct actionable they must act maliciously, which either meant without just cause or with an. indirect motive. To accept the Amendment to the Amendment would make it impossible for the leaders of the trade unions to know what they could do and what they could not do, and under what different circumstances they could or could not act.
LORD R. CECIL: Does the Amendment make a change in the law or does it not?
*SIR JOHN WALTON: I say it does.
Question put, "That those words ba-there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 30; Noes, 257. (Division List No. 313.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir A. E.

Fletcher, J. S.

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Balfour,Rt.Hn.A.J(CityLond.)

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh H.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bowles, G. Stewart

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H.B.

Smith,F.E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred

Thomson,W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Marks, H.H. (Kent)

Valentia, Viscount

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Morpeth, Viscount

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Nicholson, Wm. G. (PetersKeld

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

Cecil, Lord R. Maryiebone, E.)

Nield, Herbert

Frederick Banbury and

Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

Parkes, Ebenezer

Mr. Cave.

NOES.

Abraham, Win. (Cork, N.E.)

Brooke, Stopford

Crooks, William

Agnew, George William

Brunner, J. F. L.(Lancs.,Leigh)

Crossley, Wm. J.

Alden, Percy

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Cullinan, J.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Dalziel, James Henry

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert H.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Da vies, Timothy (Fulham)

Astbury, John Meir

Burt, Rt. Hn. Thomas

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

Dickinson, W. H.(St.PancrasN.)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Byles, William Pollard

Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

Baker,Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Cameron, Robert

Duckworth, James

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Duncan,C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard K.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Barnard, E. B.

Channing, Francis Allston

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Barnes, G. N.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Elibank, Master of

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Esmonde, SirThomas

Beale, W. P.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Essex, R. W.

Beaumont,Hubert (Eastbourne

Clancy, John Joseph

Everett, R. Lacey

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Clarke, C. Goddard

Fenwick, Chas.

Bell, Richard

Cleland, J. W.

Ferens.T. R.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Clough, W.

Ffrench, Peter

Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp't

Cobbold, Felix Thomley

Flynn, James Christopher

Benn, W.(T'w'rHainlets,S.Geo.

Collins,SirW. J. (S. Pancras,W.

Foster, Rt. Hn. Sir Walter

Bertram, Julius

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Billson, Alfred

Cooper, G. J.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Black, A. W. (Bedfordshire)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Gill, A. H.

Brace, William

Cowan, W. H.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

Brigg, John

Cox, Harold

Glover, Thomas

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Craig, Herb. J. (Tynemouth)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Gooch, Gearge Peabody

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Rowlands, J.

Grant, Corrie

Maclean, Donald

Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Macpherson, J. T.

Sehwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Mancheste

Griffith, Ellis J.

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Scott,A.H.(Ashton underLyne

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

M'Callum, John M.

Seaverns, J. H.

Hall, Frederick

M'Kenna, Reginald

Seely, Major J. B.

Halpin, J.

M'Killop, W.

Shackleton, David James

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.)

Hardie,J.Koir(Merthyr Tydvil)

Maddison, Frederick

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Mallet, Charles E.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Haslain, James (Derbyshire)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Sinclair, Rt. Hn. John

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Haworth, Arthur A.

Marnham, F. J.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Smyth,Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Massie, J.

Snowden, P.

Hazleton, Richard

Masterman, C. F. G.

Stanley,Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesb.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Menzies, Walter

Steadman, W. C.

Henderson,J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Higham, John Sharp

Montagu, E. S.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Hills, J. W.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Morrell, Philip

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Hodge, John

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Sullivan, Donal

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Murphy, John

Summerbell, T.

Horniman, Emslie John

Napier, T. B.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Hudson, Walter

Nicholls, George

Tennant, Sir Edwd. (Salisbury

Hyde, Clarendon

Nicholson,Chas. N. (Doncaster)

Thomasson, Franklin

Illingworth, Percy H.

Nolan, Joseph

Thompson, J. W.H.(Somerset E

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Norman, Henry

Thorne, William

Jackson, R. S.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Toulmin, George

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

Ure, Alexander

Jardine, Sir J.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Verney, F. W.

Jenkins, J.

O'Grady, J.

Vivian, Henry

Johnon, John (Gateshead)

O'Malley, William

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Parker. James (Halifax)

Wallace, Robert

Jones Win. (Carnarvonshire

Paul, Herbert

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S

Jowett, F. W.

Paulton, James Mellor

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Joyce, Michael

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Kearley, Hudson E.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Ward,W.Dudley(Southamp't'

Kekewich, Sir George

Price, C.E. (Edinb'gh Central)

Weir, James Galloway:

Kelley, George D.

Radford, G. H.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshirt

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Rainy, A. Rolland

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Whitehead, Rowland

Laidlaw, Robert

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Rees, J. D.

Wiles, Thomas

Lambert, George

Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

Wilkie, Alexander

Lamont, Norman

Richards,T. F.(Wolverhampt'n

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Rchardson, A.

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R

Lehmann, R. C.

Rickett, J. Corapton

Wilson John (Durham, Mid.)

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Roberts, Chas. H. 'Lincoln)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.

Lewis, John Herbert

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Lough, Thomas

Robertson,Sir G.ScottfBradfrd

Yoxall, James Henry

Lupton, Arnold

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Robinson, S.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr,

Lynch, H. B.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Pease.

Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk Bgs.)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Question put, "That the words ' that it induces some other person to break a
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 255;

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Agnew, George William

Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Bell, Richard

Alden, Percy

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Allen,A.Acland (Christchurch)

Barnard, E. B.

Benn,Sir J.Williams(Devonp'rt

Asquith,Rt.Hon.HerbertHenry

Barnes, G. N.

Benn,W.(T'w'r H'mlets,S.Geo.

Astbury, John Meir

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Bertram, Julius

Atherley-Jones, L.

Beale, W. P.

Billson, Alfred

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Beaumont,Hubert (Eastbourne

Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

contract of employment or be there inserted."
Noes, 30. (Division List No. 314.)

Brace, William

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Norman, Henry

Brigg, John

Haworth, Arthur A.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

O' Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid)

Brooke, Stopford

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Brunner J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh)

Hazleton, Richard

O'Grady, J.

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Malley, William

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Henderson,J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Higham, John Sharp

Paul, Herbert

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hills, J. W.

Paulton, James Mellor

Buxton.Rt.Hn. SydneyCharles

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Poarce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Byles, William Pollard

Hodge, John

Power, Patrick Joseph

Cameron, Robert

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Price, C. E.(Edinburgh,Central)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Horniman, Emslie John

Radford, G. H.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hudson, Walter

Rainy, A. Rolland

Causton,Rt. Hn. RichardKnight

Hyde, Clarendon

Raphael, Herbert H.

Channing, Francis Allston

Illingworth, Percy H.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Isaacs, Ruf us Daniel

Rees, J. D.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Jackson,R. S.

Richards.Thomas (W.Monm'th

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Jacoby, James Alfred

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Clancy, John Joseph

Jardine, Sir J.

Richardson, A.

Clarke, C. Goddard

Jenkins, J.

Riekett, J. Compton

Cleland, J. W.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Clough, W.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S.Pancras,W

Jowett, F. W.

Robertson,Sir G.Scott(Bradf rd

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Joyce, Michael

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Cooper, G. J.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Robinson, S.

Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Kekewich, Sir George

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Kelley, George D.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Cowan, W. H.

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Cox, Harold

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rose, Charles Day

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Laidlaw, Robert

Rowlands, J.

Crooks, William

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Crossley, William J.

Lambert, George

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Cullinan, J.

Lamont, Norman

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Dalziel, James Henry

Leese,Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lehmann, R. C.

Seaverns, J. H.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral

Seely, Major J. B.

Dickinson,W.H.(St.Pancras,N.

Lewis, John Herbert

Shackleton, David James

Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Shaw,Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.

Duckworth, James

Lough, Thomas

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lyell, Charles Henry

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lynch, H. B.

Simon, John Allesbrook

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Elibank, Master of

Mackamess, Frederic C.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Esinonde, Sir Thomas

Maclean, Donald

Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)

Essex, R. W.

Macpherson, J. T.

Snowden, P.

Everett, R. Lacey

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.

Stanley.Hon.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

Fenwick, Charles

MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal E.)

Stoadman, W. C.

Ferens, T. R.

M'Callum, John M.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Ffrench, Peter

M'Kenna, Reginald

Strachey, Sir Edward

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Killop, W.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Maddison, Frederick

Sullivan, Donal

Fuller, John Michael F.

Mallet, Charles E.

Summerbell, T.

Gill, A. H.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Gladstone,Rt.HnHerbert John

Marks,G.Croydon(Launceston

Tennant,Sir Edward (Salisbury

Glover, Thomas

Marnham, F. J.

Thomasson, Franklin

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset,E.

Gooch, George Peabody

Massie, J.

Thorne, William

Grant, Corrie

Masterman, C. F. G.

Toulmin, George

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Menzies, Walter

Ure, Alexander

Grey, Rt, Hon. Sir Edward

Molteno, Percy Alport

Verney, F. W.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Montagu, E. S.

Vivian, Henry

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Hall, Frederick

Morrell, Philip

Wallace, Robert

Halpin, J.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Walton,Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Murphy, John

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Hardie,J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

Napier, T. B.

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Nicholls, George

Ward, VV. Dudley (Southampt'n

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Nicholson, CharlesN.(Doncast'r

Weir, James Galloway

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Nolan, Joseph

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

1696

1697

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Whitehead, Rowland

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Yoxall, James Henry

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

TELLERS FOB THE AYES—Mr.

Wiles, Thomas

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Wilkie, Alexander

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Pease.

NOES.

Acland-Hood,Rt.Hn.SirAlex.F

Du Cros, Harvey

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Balearres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Rawlinson, JohnFrederick Pee

Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hamilton, Marquess of

Smith,F.E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Beaeh.Hn.Miohael Hugh Hicks

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Thomson,W.Mitchell (Lanark)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Valentia, Viscount

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Mirks, H. H.(Kmt)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Morpeth, Viscount

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petorsfield

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Nield, Herbert

Frederick Banbury and

Ceoil, Lord R. (Marylcbone, E.)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Mr. Cave.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

LORD R. CECILmoved to leave out from the word "Interference "In line 26, and insert the words "In restraint of trade." What those words at the end of the clause meant he did not know, but he knew what the legal doctrine of restraint of trade meant, and the sooner it was abolished the better. It was a doctrine which was adopted when it was part of the duty of the Courts to regulate trade relations, and it was then laid down that any agreement or act that was done in restraint of trade must be on grounds of public policy wrong. He did not think it would be unreasonable for the Committee to lay down generally that in respect of trade disputes no action should be brought upon the ground only that the act complained of was in restraint of trade. That would be a beneficial alteration, and it would have considerable effect in dealing with trade unions. It would be much more intelligent than the words proposed by the Government in the latter part of this clause. He did not know what was in the mind of the Government in regard to that point. He should like the Attorney - General to explain in detail what those words meant, and mainly with the view of obtaining that information he begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 26, to leave out from the word ' interference' to the end of the clause, and to insert the words ' in restraint of trade.' "—(Lord R. Cecil.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
*SIR JOHN WALTONdid not think the words which the noble Lord
1698
proposed to substitute for the words at the end of the clause were quite appropriate. This was not a question of restraint of trade. The object of this clause was to prevent its being held that conduct was unlawful merely because it tended to interfere with some other person in the conduct of his trade or business or employment, or with the right of some other person to dispose of his capital or his labour as he liked. The whole of the clause, with the exception of the last phrase, had been based upon the Report of the Commission. For these reasons he could not accept the Amendment.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that an answer on this point to the argument of the noble Lord would be found on page 30 of the Report of the Royal Commission, where there was a memorandum on Allen v. Flood by four of the Commissioners.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid the words he would like to call the Attorney-General's attention to were—
" Or with the right of some other person to dispose of his capital or his labour as he wills."
Those words were entirely new, as far as he was aware, in any Act of Parliament. He submitted, without going into the question of policy, that those words were too wide, and ought to be carefully considered between now and the Report stage, because they might be taken to have a very much wider meaning. The words recommended by the Commission were—
" An individual shall not be liable for doing any act not in itself an actionable tort only on the ground that it is an interference with another person's trade, business, or employment."

1699
The additional words at the end had been suggested since. It was not absolutely clear to the Committee what would be the effect of the words they were voting on, and he ventured to say that the interpretation given to the words might be a great deal wider than was now known.
LORD R. CECILsaid he did not meant ask the Committee to divide on this point, but he wished to say that he was left completely in the dark as to what the hon. and learned Gentleman meant. He really thought that they ought to know what these words meant. They appeared to be very wide. He could conceive of their interfering with the rights of a person to dispose of his capital. It was not easy, on the spur of the moment, to give instances, but he must say that it appeared to him that the words went very far indeed, and unless the Attorney-General could point to the kind of thing he had in his mind he really asked him not to insist on the retention of these words.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the object of these words was simply to make it clear what the nature of the interference was.
LORD R. CECILasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
SIR FBEDEEICK BANBUEYproposed the omission of the clause on the ground that it legalised boycotting. The clause had been varied from the form in which it originally stood when introduced into the House. It legalised boycotting and all sorts of steps which would cause hardship to honest people. Since the clause was introduced it had been made ten times worse by the addition of the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean. There was a long discussion on that Amendment, which not only added to the evils of the clause as introduced, but went very much farther, and allowed people to induce others to break their contracts. They had had a very interesting speech from an
1700
hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House who represented one of the divisions of Lancashire. He gave an instance of what might happen in the case of a dispute at a colliery, and that was ruled out of order, because it was not the question before the Committee. But it was the question before the Committee at the present moment, and as the clause stood now, the following might happen. Suppose there was a dispute at a colliery—quite a trivial dispute, something like the case of a foreman being dismissed and his reinstatement demanded by the trade union and refused by the owners—and a strike was ordered, and the business of that colliery was taken by another colliery. Possibly an arrangement might be entered into by these two collieries whereby the colliery where the strike had taken place should receive a' certain portion of the profits on the coal which would have been supplied by it had there been no strike. He could conceive of that being done by arrangement between the masters. He could conceive that as an easy way, or a very good way, of endeavouring to fight, as the masters were entitled to do. Let the Committee consider what the position would be if this clause became law. There had been a strike at Colliery A and Colliery B had supplied coal to the customers of Colliery A. The strikers found that the strike was not inflicting the injury on Colliery A which they wished to be done, and they went to the colliers employed at Colliery B and induced the men who were employed there to break their contracts and come out. They would not be liable for that act under this clause, and not only so, but owing to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, it would not be possible for the owners of Colliery B to bring an action against the colliers in Colliery A. It might be said that the owners of Colliery B could bring an action against the colliers in their employment for breach of contract. But supposing there were 5,000 or 6,000 men, the owners of the colliery would have to bring an action against each of these men, and it might be that the men would not have a sufficient amount of money to pay the fine. What would

1701
be the good of taking action? The colliery proprietors would have lost their money, and gained nothing. It seemed to him that that would be a most disgraceful case, because the union interfered avowedly and admittedly from a desire to deal with certain people whose only fault was that they were not members of the union. Under this clause that would be permissible. It had been argued that the majority Report of the Commission said that it was advisable to alter the law on account of the decision which was given in the case of Allen v. Flood. Though he admitted that the members who composed the majority of the Commission were gentlemen to whose opinions and recommendations great importance and weight should be attached, there was another gentleman on the Commission who gave a very different opinion. His opinion was that in the case of workmen who did not wish to join in a strike persuasion might involve interference with their liberty of action. [Cheers] He was glad to hear that statement cheered because it was expressed in weighty words. Whatreally this clause did was to put into the hands of a trade union power to say what people might do and what they might not do. An employer, henceforth, might not conduct his business as he liked. He might not employ whom he liked, he might be boycotted by a trade union if he did not do what they told him. [An HON. MEMBER: What about employers who boycott working men?] He was not in favour of any legislation to exempt employers. If they did what was wrong they should be prosecuted. At the same time a trade union, if they did what was wrong, should be punished. The hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne, on the Second Reading of the Bill, actually claimed immunity from the law for trade unions. That was really what they were wanting at the present moment. He said that was absolutely wrong. He believed that when they understood what was being done the people would not approve of the claim that was made to allow a trade union power to say that a man might not earn his living.
MR. SHACKLETON: I think the hon. Member is unfair in that statement. It was a mere slip on the part of the hon.
1702
Member, and he corrected himself immediately on attention being drawn to it.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he did not understand the hon. Gentleman to dispute the statement he made with regard to the opinion attributed to the hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne. He understood him to say that the hon. Member made the statement, and that he afterwards withdrew it. He was not in the House at the time, but he saw it reported in The Times newspaper, and he did not know that he withdrew it. If he had known he would not have made the remark. While he desired that trade unions should be allowed to do what was lawful in this country, and that there should be no liability put upon them which was not put upon anybody else, he objected to their being allowed to use their power to prevent people earning their livelihood in any way they chose. He objected to their being allowed to put coercion on people who were not really connected with any strike or dispute, and whose only offence was that they had business relations with one of the parties to a strike. This clause would permit of those people who were perfectly innocent being ruined and wrecked in their businesses by trade unions, and they would have no civil remedy at law. That was an unreasonable proposition, and if it were passed he was certain all the small employers of labour would regret the day that the Bill became law.
SIR E. CARSONsaid the Attorney-General had now stated that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean introduced a new principle of law, namely, that a person was allowed in a trade dispute to induce others to break their contracts in cases where they could not have done so before. If that was the law it was a very important matter in itself. He wanted the Attorney-General to reconsider that matter before the Report stage in reference to the first clause. The result of legalising any person to induce others to break contracts was also by virtue of the first clause to allow a conspiracy of persons to induce others

1703
to break contracts. That appeared to him to be a wide and serious matter. It might be a matter of little importance for an individual to induce another to break a contract, but if they were to allow a large number of persons to conspire together to get people to break contracts he thought they were passing a law the extent of which it was very hard to realise and the extent of which had not been fully considered.
MR. NIELDsaid the Amendment of which he had given notice was intended to prevent the infliction of great hardship which it was conceivable might result by reason of the large powers which trade unions would possess under the provisions of the Bill, but since his Amendment could not be moved he ventured to direct the attention of the House to the point which he desired to make. He was one of those who looked upon industrial wars as a necessity; and it was perfectly right that when overbearing employers sought to impose unfairly onerous or oppressive terms upon their workmen there should be methods by which the workmen could resist. He was not prepared to assert that in some respects the provisions of the clause were not justified by what had taken place in the past; but while in the case of a trade dispute on a matter of wages or something which concerned the management of labour where a real grievance existed, or as to the merits of which there was a bona fide dispute—there might be conceivable circumstances under which it claimed to be perfectly legitimate to induce men to break their contracts to correct what was regarded as a grave and industrial evil and independently there might also be justification for the bringing in aid what was described by the Commissioners in their Report as a sympathetic strike of workmen engaged in kindred businesses with a view to bringing the original dispute to a successful
termination, yet he was bound to protest against the application of this clause to a case which was illustrated by Quinn v. Leathern, where there was no dispute between the employer and his workmen, or any secondary or sympathetic strike, but where men were called out simply because the employer had in his employ men who were not and who did not desire to become members of a trade union. To use the powers proposed to be given by the Bill in such a case as that would be tyranny of the worst kind, and he ventured to hope that in the interests of fair dealing between masters and men some qualification would be introduced into the clause, so that a weapon should not be placed in the hands of trade unions which might be wielded to the detriment of trade and the unsettling of all questions between employers and workmen merely for the purpose of aggrandising the unions and making them compulsory instead of optional and voluntary associations such as they were at present. The very object with which this measure was introduced, so far as could be gathered, or the House could rely upon the declarations of the Government and of those hon. Members who claimed to represent Labour in that House, was that protection was only required when a bona fide dispute existed or was imminent, by that he meant a real question affecting hours or conditions of labour or the scale of pay. For those reasons there should be a proviso or qualification of the clause inserted to meet the very real danger to which he had directed attention, and he hoped that the Attorney-General would on the Report stage see the desirability of such a course.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 259; Noes, 259. (Division List No. 315.)

Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Brace, William

Haworth, Arthur A.

O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Brigg, John

Hay, Hon. Claude George

O'Connor,John (Kildare, N.)

Brocklehurst, VV. B.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Brooke, Stopford

Hazelton, Richard

O'Grady, J.

Bru'mer,J.F.L.(Lancs., Leigh)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Malley, William

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Henry, Charles S.

Paul, Herbert

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Higham, John Sharp

Paulton, James Mellor

Butt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hills, J. W.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Buxton,Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles

Hodge, John

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Byles, William Pollard

Holden, E. Hopkinson.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Cameron, Robert

Horniman, Emslie John

Price. C. E. (Edinb'gh. Central

Campbell-Bannerinan, Sir H.

Hudson, Walter

Radford, G. H.

Caustou.Rt.Ha.RichardKnight

Hyde, Clarendon

Rainy, A. Rolland

Chanuing, Francis Allston

Illingworth, Percy H.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Jackson, R. S.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro

Clancy, John Joseph

Jacoby, James Alfred

Rees, J. D.

Clarke, C. Goddard

Jardine, Sir J.

Riehards,Thomas (W.Monmoth

Cleland, J. W.

Jenkins, J.

Richards,T. F. (Wolverh'mp'n)

Clough, W.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Richardson, A.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Rickett, J. Compton

Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras, W

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Jowett, F. W.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Cooper, G. J.

Joyce, Michael

Robertson,Rt.Hn.E.(Dundee)

Corbett,CH(Sussex,E.G'inst'd

Kearley, Hudson E.

Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradford

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Kekewich, Sir George

Robertson,.1. M. (Tyneside)

Cowan, W. H.

Kelley, George D

Robinson, S.

Cox, Harold

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth

Laidlaw, Robert

Roe, Sir Thomas

Crooks, William

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Rose, Charles Day

Crossley, William J.

Lambert, George

Rowlands, J.

Dalziel, James Henry

Lajnont, Norman

Samuol,Herbert L. (Cleve'an i)

Davies, Timothy (Fu ham)

Leese,Sir JosephF.(Accrington

Schwann,.C. Duncan (Hyde;

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S)

Lehmann, R. C.

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester

I)ickinson,W.H.(S.Pancras, N.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Scott, A.H.(Ashton-under-Lyne

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Sears, J. E.

Duckworth, James

Lough, Thomas

Seaverns, J. H.

Duncan,C.(Barrow-in-Fnrness

Lyell, Charles Henry

Seely, Major J. B.

Dunn. A. Edward (Gamborne)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Shackleton, David James

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Elibank, Master of

Maclean, Donald

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Macphersou, J. T.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Essex, R. W.

MacVeagh,Jeremiah (Down.S.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Eve, Harry Trelawuey

MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Everett, R. Lacey

M'Callum, John M.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Fenwick, Charles

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

Ferens, T. R.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Snowden, P.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

M'Killop, W.

Stanley,Hn. A. Lyulph (Chcsh.)

Ffrench, Peter

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Steadman, W. C.

Freunes, Hon. Eustace

Maddison, Frederick

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Foster, Rt. Hon.Sir Walter

Mallet, Charles E.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Freenian-Thomas, Freeman

Manfield, Harry (Nbrthants)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Fuller, John Michael F.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Gill, A. H.

Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)

Stuart, James (Sunderland).

Gladstone, Rt.Hn.Herbert John

Maniham, F. J.

Sullivan, Donal

Glover, Thomas

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Summerbell, T.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Massie, J.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Gooch, George Peabody

Masterman, C. F. G.

Tennant,SirEdward (Salisbury

Grant, Corrie

Menzies, Walter

Thomasson, Franklin

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Thompson, JWH. (Somerset,E.)

Grey, Rt. Hon Sir Edward

Montagu, E.S.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Thorne, William

Hall, Frederick

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Toulmin, George

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Murphy, John

Ure, Alexander

Hardie,J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil

Napier, T. B.

Verney, F. W.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Nicholls, George

Vivian, Henry

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r

Nicholson, ChiarlesN.(Doncast'r

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Nolan, Joseph

Wallace, Robert

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Norman, Henry

Walters, John Tudor

1706

1707

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Whitehead, Rowland

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Walton. Joseph (Barnsley)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Wilson, W.T. (Westhoughton)

Ward,John(Stoke-upon-Trent

Wiles, Thomas

Yoxall, James Henry

Ward,W.Dudley(Southanipt'n

Willkie, Alexander

Weir, James Galloway

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease

White, J. D. (Dumbaitonshire

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

NOES.

Acland-HoocLRtHn.Sir Alex.F.

Cecil,Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Nicholson, Wm.G.(Petersfield)

Balcarres, Lord

Craik, Sir Henry

Parkes, Ebenezer

Balfour,RtHn.AJ.(City Lond.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Fletcher, J. S.

Rawlinson,JohnFrederick Peel

Beach, Hn. MichaelHughHicks

Porster, Henry William

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Smith,F.E. (Liverpool, Walton

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Valentia, Viscount

Castlereagh, Viscount

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Cavendish.Rt.Hn.Victor C. W.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. Nield.

Cecil. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Cecil, Lord John J. Joicey-

Morpeth, Viscount

SIR JOHN WALTONmoved to postpone Clause 4 until after new clauses. He stated that when the new clause standing in his name had been discussed, and providing it was carried, he would ask leave to substitute it for the present Clause 4.
Motion made, and Question put, "That Clause 4 be postponed until after new clauses."—(Sir John Walton.)
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the course proposed by the Attorney-General was, he thought, a very unusual one. He never remembered anything like it being done before, merely as a question of procedure. He did not complain of that, because according to his view one of the defects in the present rules of the House of Commons was that the person in charge of the Bill, be he a member of the Government or an unofficial Member, had no power to suggest the dropping of any portion of his measure until the clause had been discussed from beginning to end. He should have thought there was some doubt whether it was in order for the Attorney-General to propose a new clause, which had not yet been read a second time, while there was another clause on the Paper covering the same ground. Of course, if the Chairman ruled that was in order he had nothing more to say on that point except to protest against this clumsy method of procedure. He presumed, however, that this would be the proper time to discuss the general action
1708
of the Government in substituting a new policy for the old. He did not intend to make a long speech, but it was necessary he should say something upon a Parliamentary transaction which had very few parallels, and he anticipated many other Members on both sides of the House would be anxious to express their views on the same point. The clause they were i now asked to postpone embodied the recommendations of the Royal Commission, which, whether they approved them or not, were the recommendations of men deeply versed in one of the most difficult questions, men to whom the Law Officers of the Crown and hon. Members on both sides of the House owed a great debt of obligation for the time and labour they had devoted to the subject. The Report had behind it the declared opinion of more than one member of the Government, and he was not sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not expressed in very clear language his preference for the policy of the Bill rather than that of the Amendment.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): Quite true.
MR. A. J. BALFOURcontinuing, said the Secretary of State for War, whose authority upon these legal questions must carry great weight on both sides of the House, had also expressed himself with equal emphasis in favour of the original provision of the Bill and against i the new clause, which was so suddenly

1709
and unexpectedly accepted by the Government, not on the Second Reading of this Bill, but of another Bill which came on in the interval between the First and SECOND READINGs of this Bill. The Attorney-General himself had made an impassioned defence of the very proposal he was now going to desert, and against the proposal which he was now going to ask the Committee to accept. The policy of the Government had gone through an absolute reversal between the First and Second Readings, and the Attorney-General would now curse what he formerly blessed and bless what he formerly cursed. He refrained from further developing the obvious advantages which such a change of front on the part of the Government gave him. He wished to make no personal attack. He would only point out that such a change of policy on the part of the Government laid them open to ridicule, because it indicated the pliability of some members of the Government to the pressure exerted by the Labour Party. He looked with the greatest mistrust, not upon the purity of the motives of the Government, but upon the policy which, under political pressure, they had been induced to adopt. While it was natural that trade unions should press upon the Government this policy of giving protection to their fighting funds, he could not believe that it was a wise policy for the House of Commons to adopt. It was proposed to give a protection to the funds of the unions used for fighting purposes which no other funds in this country would possess. That was the root of the whole trouble. Was it right thus to abandon a principle of law of universal application? If all that was asked for by the unions was that their funds should not be liable unless there was some moral responsibility—not technical, but real responsibility—brought home to the unions, then he would be heart and soul with them. But the new clause went much further than that, and was deliberately designed to prevent trade union funds being responsible for injuries which the trade unions through their officials had deliberately intended to inflict. From their own point of view, \\ere trade unionists wise in not trying to find some other way out of their difficulty than this new clause which the
1710
Attorney-General was about to propose? He did not believe any defence had been attempted of the new clause, except the argument that these disputes between employers and employed resembled in the main a state of war and must in some aspects be even cruel or brutal like war, and that they did not make things better by hampering either of the parties by these unnecessary restraints. But were they to admit that in a civilised country disputes of this kind must be regarded as subject to a wholly different law? Were they to say that civilisation was really bankrupt when dealing with trade disputes? He could not accept so tragic a view. He could not believe that it was not within the wit of man to find some more satisfactory issue of a problem which necessarily weighed on all of them. He was not moved by the argument used by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway that what the law was now going to be made was thought to be the law for many years, and that during that time no-serious evil came of it. He was quite ready, for the sake of argument at any rate, to accept both propositions. But they were legislating for a future in which the organisation both of capital and labour was likely to reach a more and more perfected form. Was it wise in face of these growing forces to abolish legislation which from time immemorial they had admitted in every other relation of life? He did not say the dangers were chiefly to be anticipated on the side of labour. Everyone who watched what was going on in other countries, and especially in the United States, knew perfectly well the anxious preoccupation which the vast combinations and accumulations of capital were causing legislators, and publicists. He did not deny that there might be difficulties in dealing with great combinations of labour, but he was certain the difficulties might be just as great in dealing with great combinations of capital. This new clause was rightly bilateral, and could only be so framed. But it was not a prospect that could be looked forward to with unmixed satisfaction. He was convinced that hon. Gentlemen representing trade unions were anxious for no more than that the interests of combinations and the protection of labour should be safeguarded and not unduly interfered with. But

1711
strikes were used in many countries not in the furtherance of trade disputes at all, but for objects wholly alien to the minds of the trade union leaders in our country. They knew what they wanted, and respected it. They knew that the trade union leaders did their very best to prevent strikes. But they were not legislating for them alone, but for all organisations, whether of capital or of labour, which might use the power of combination for any purpose. In the clause there was no limitation; it was not confined to trade disputes, but was universal. He confessed he thought the first thoughts of the Government were the best thoughts. The Government did attempt in the drafting of the Bill to deal with this problem in a moderate and statesmanlike spirit, and they had been unduly alarmed and improperly misdirected by the pressure put upon them by some of their friends. He was very sorry they had taken this course. He believed that the country generally and the trade unions themselves would really not have objected to the way in which the Bill was originally proposed. It still had the support, he understood, of some members of the Government, it was the opinion of a very large number of Gentlemen opposite, and perhaps even of some Members representing trade unions. [" No."] Well, at all events, he thought some of his arguments would appear to them to be of substance. Were they deliberately to throw aside the results of the labours of the Government, the Cabinet, the Attorney-General, the draftsman, and the Commission, which had resulted in Clause 4 as it stood in the Bill? Should they not abstain from hastily taking up the new clause on the inspiration, which appeared to have come suddenly to the Prime Minister at about three o'clock on a Friday afternoon, to accept wholesale the rather crude suggestions of the trade unions? Ought they to sacrifice interests which might prove of national importance simply because they thought, and rightly, that the present leaders of labour in this country would not abuse the powers given them? That was not true wisdom; that was not the path they ought to pursue, and he confessed that, as far as he was concerned, he could not, with the best will in the world, bring himself to believe
1712
either that the trade unions were in their own interests well advised to ask for this exceptional treatment, or that, if in spite of that view they still asked for it, the House would be well advised to give it to them. He asked that all corporations, be they what they might, should be under one common law and subject to one recognised set of obligations. There was nothing he knew of, either in regard to employed or employers, in the one as little as in the other, which made him think that there ought to be special relaxation on their behalf, and for that reason he must vote against the Motion made by the hon. and learned Gentleman that Clause 4 of the Bill should be postponed for the purpose of discussing that other and far inferior alternative which has been proposed by the Government in deference to the wishes of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway.
MR. ASQUITHsaid the right hon. Gentleman had made a very temperate and moderate speech, and he thought he might fairly grant to him that he had not taken undue advantage of the Parliamentary situation, tempting as it undoubtedly was in some respects. But since the right hon. Gentleman had referred to him, and because he had for many years past taken a very great interest in the affairs of trade unions, he would say a few words. How did the problem become a pressing one? Everybody believed that some legislation was required to give trade unions certain advantages. During something like thirty years they would not find a case in which any Court of law had enforced, as against the funds of a trade union, liability for acts done in contemplation or furtherance of, or incident to, a trade dispute, and that state of the law was not only universally understood, but, so far as he knew, was universally acquiesced in by both masters and men, and nobody had succeeded in showing that there was any detriment to the community at large. Then came the Taff Vale decision, and that decision was preceded and accompanied by another series of decisions in the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal. The application of the common law of agency to minor and subordinate agents of the trade unions, coupled with the entirely

1713
novel principle that the funds of the unions were liable to be taken into execution for their acts, produced a situation which it was necessary for statesmen to face. Then the question arose, What was the best way of bringing the law back into harmony with what everyone understood it to have been so long without injury to any party? He thought that the simplest and most practical way way of dealing with the matter was to alter the law of agency in its application to trade unions. He was not sure that he did not still think that that would have been the preferable course. There was another plan suggested—the plan embodied in the alternative clause of the Attorney-General— which was to exempt the trade unions from liability even in cases where agency was established. He would never assent himself to a proposition of that kind, unless the same law was applied to the masters as to the men. He never had been and never would be in favour of legislation which would give one set of persons in an industrial dispute an advantage over the other, which would tie the hands of one side and leave the hands of the other side free. Therefore, he could only assent to an arrangement which established perfect equality as between the combinations of masters and the combinations of men, and his objection in principle on this point was met by the alternative clause of his hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General. As he had said, he thought the balance of practical convenience would have been met by the adoption of the course which he had originally suggested. But he had to bear in mind two very important facts. The first was that the solution in the alternative clause commended itself to the vast majority of those concerned. That was not a decisive consideration; but it was one, that was not without weight. But a more important point was that upon the whole he had come to the conclusion—gradually he admitted—that there was less risk of actual legislation on disputed questions going to the Courts of law, passing from one stage of appeal to another, and involving loss of temper, money, and time, by adopting the perfectly simple and common-sense method embodied in the alternative clause, than if they were
1714
to lay down in regard to industrial combinations a new code of the law of agency. The Leader of the Opposition admitted that if they looked at the past conduct of the trade unions, at the nature of their present operations, and at the character, objects, and methods of their leaders, there was no real and practical danger of power of this kind being abused. For his part, he said—not for the first time and certainly not with any intention of flattering the trade unions, but simply for the sake of historical accuracy and justice—that the operations of those great combinations, since they had been freed by the law which previously held them in restraint, had been in the direction, not of industrial warfare, but of industrial peace. He said the same of the combination of employers. There was no doubt that the recognition by the law of combination, and the operation of the work of combination, in industrial matters, instead of embittering, would reconcile the relations of all parties concerned. If; as the Leader of the Opposition admitted, there was nothing in the present conduct of the trade unions to lead to an anticipation that they were likely to depart from the path of moderation they had so long pursued, why should the right hon. Gentleman frighten them with imaginary dangers of the remote future? It was because he believed it was the duty of Parliament to do everything in its power to place in a position of perfect freedom both employers and employed—freedom of combination and freedom of action within those well-understood and almost traditional limits of moderation which had always prevailed in industrial conflicts—that he should support the new clause.
MR. PIKE PEASEsaid he had listened with the greatest interest to the speech just made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he would like to point out that the right hon. Gentleman did not exactly realise the attitude he had taken up in past years in respect to this matter. It was perfectly clear to anybody who took the trouble to look through the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the attitude he had adopted to-day was absolutely in every respect contrary to the attitude

1715
he had adopted in the past. The right hon. Gentleman had now qualified his action by stating that he wished employers to have the same opportunity as the working men of the country in respect to trade disputes. But as this question was not applicable to employers in any case it did not affect the question in any degree. He would refer the Committee again to the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman on February 5th, 1903. It appeared to him that if the right hon. Gentleman had that opinion in respect of this question then, he could not alter it on account of the fact that extra powers had been given to employers in regard to it. He had had a considerable amount of experience in respect of trade unions. He had had the honour and the opportunity single-handed to arrange an eight hours day for a firm of blast furnacemen. If they had to deal with leaders of trade unions in the North of England, they had to deal with men who knew their business. But he could not believe that they should give them a power which they ought not to have. He would like to put to the Committee a case in reference to this question. He was speaking a moment ago of the question of blast furnaces. Supposing a master who owned a blast furnace made arrangements with his men that on both sides a fortnight's notice should be given before the stoppage of work. A leader of the trade union came down and persuaded the men that they should go out before that fortnight was up. If they did, damage might result to the extent of £1,000, and it seemed absolutely unfair that there should be no opportunity of obtaining compensation from the men or the trade union responsible for causing that loss. Of course, it might be said that action might be taken against the men who refused to work; that was perfectly true, but in that case nothing could be obtained, and there could be no object in taking the action. The hon. Member for one of the divisions of Durham, in a letter he wrote to The Times last year, said that a Bill before Parliament granted immunity entirely to trade unions for conspiracy. It must be plain to every hon. Member that this Bill also granted immunity from the law of conspiracy to every trade union in the country, and
1716
under these circumstances, he did think that at this time of the session the matter was of too much importance to be dealt with. Might he appeal to the Prime Minister to consider whether it would not be possible to take the fourth clause at the beginning of the autumn session?
MR. SHACKLETON: May I appeal to the House not to spend much time on this point, but to get to the clause itself?
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that although he was extremely anxious, so far as he could reasonably be expected, to respond to such an appeal as that which the hon. Member below the gangway had just addressed to the Committee, he ventured to think on the present occasion the application was an entirely unreasonable one, simply because, as he understood, the question they were now discussing was a matter of broad principle, which would not be open to them to discuss on subsequent Amendments. This was one of the most important and far reaching proposals laid before the House of Commons, and it was almost farcical to suggest that they should abandon the discussion on the first opportunity they had of expressing their views upon the subject. An hon. Gentleman below the gangway said it was not the Second Reading. He would remind the hon. Gentleman that they did have a Second Reading of some proposals but not of this proposal, and if they did not have a discussion similar to a Second Reading on the clause which the Attorney-General introduced, it was very necessary indeed that at some period or another there should be a general and not i detailed consideration of these proposals. The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was certainly a speech which showed very striking courage, and was marked with very great lucidity throughout. It was such as they would expect from the Chancellor of the Exchequer when there was a discrepancy;o be explained between what he said previously and what he said to-night. Sow far did the basis of that change rest upon Parliamentary convenience and how far did it go down to some?reat ground of principle? They were entitled, and bound to ask, what that

1717
principle was. When the clause was originally introduced it was based upon principle and only upon principle. The Attorney-General made a speech to his House, not on the spur of the moment, but a speech which he had deeply considered, and the arguments of which bore throughout the marks of careful preparation. He came down and told the House that. it was the deliberate view of the Government that the clause supported by Gentlemen below the gangway, and which he was now adopting, was practically immoral. At least, he would not deny that he told them that if these propsals were carried out they would be creating a privilege for the proletariat, giving a sort of benefit of clergy to trade unions analogous to the benefit which was formerly enjoyed by certain sections of the population. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether they were sure it was wise to remove from these agents a sense of responsibility. He said they were often swept by passion, excitement, and natural feeling, and was it right that their agents should move about with the knowledge that whatever they did was lawful? If he Attorney-General was right in saying that by giving these powers, for which no precedent had been cited, it would destroy or lessen the sense of responsibility on the part of men who had great power over others, surely they were right to-night, before adopting this new clause, to ask for some reason, for the argument which had induced the Government to change their mind. There was no single suggestion from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, one of the most accomplished and ingenious lawyers in the House of Commons, explaining what it was that had induced the Government to change their mind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said he changed his mind because at the time he adversely criticised the proposals of the trade unions lie believed that those proposals were going to be confined to trade unions only. The answer to that was that the language in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had explained those proposals bore no reference at all to any question as to whether or not the privileges were, to be extended to associations of employers. The right hon. Gentleman
1718
said it was a mistake to extend privileges of this kind to any association, but he did not say whether it was an association of employers or working men. The right hon. Gentleman said that the common sense of the community would not be easily convinced that an association of persons, whether incorporated or not, made not the slightest difference, and that wielding great powers and controlling considerable sums they should not be legally answerable for the acts of agents. They were told to-day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that although the common sense of the community would not recognise that an association of persons should have these powers, if they had two associations of persons the common sense of the community would tolerate it. That was a striking proposition from one who reinforced his observation and original criticism by pointing out that the objections were that these associations wielded great power and controlled considerable sums. He might mention a case in which the trustees of a trade union started a newspaper, the object of which was to safeguard in every possible way the interest of the trade union. Those who were responsible for that paper inserted a gross and very discreditable libel against a person with whom they conceived they had some quarrel. That person instituted proceedings and recovered damages for libel to the amount of £1,000 from the Court below. The question was raised as to whether the trustees of the trade union wore or were not, in the first place, liable to pay the £1,000, and, in the second place, whether if they were liable, they ought, or ought not to be, indemnified from the funds of the union. Was the proposition going to be contended for a moment that if the accredited and chosen representatives of a trade union published a libel at the expense of a citizen, the aggrieved person was to be deprived of his ordinary remedy at law against those who defamed his name? Was it to be suggested that he was not entitled to recover damages? If so, there should be more than the mere statement from the Government; they should have some reason afforded why those who set in motion acts which were bound to injure others should be protected from liability to compensate for those

1719
acts. Why should trade unions be protected from the consequences of action which was ex hypothesi illegal and which caused injury to other members of the community? It might be that some member of the Government had an argument which would satisfy the Committee, and if so, he hoped he would take an early opportunity of explaining what it was. They had been told that in foreign countries there was some sort of precedent to be found for this immunity. One of the hon. Members for Durham, who had a considerable knowledge of the history of this question, had pointed out in a letter to The Times that, in the case of France, they had most curiously safeguarded themselves and the general community from the absolute immunity. contained in the present proposals of the Government. France had decided that trade unions should be exempt in all cases except where the governing body had themselves authorised the illegal act in respect of which the complaint was made. So far as there was any precedent in the case of France, it was a precedent directly in favour of the arguments used on the Opposition side of the House. The Attorney-General had also quoted the case of Now South Wales, which he agreed was very useful indeed from the point of view of the present discussion, because they were dealing there with an extremely democratic community in which the rights of labour and the power of labour to enforce those rights was certainly not less fully admitted than it was in this country. The Attorney-General quoted with very great approval the circumstance that in New South Wales they could not claim any exemption for the funds of the union unless the authorities of the union were able to show—the onus being imposed upon them—that the governing body of the union were not cognisant of the illegal act and that the moment they became cognisant of it they repudiated it. If that were quoted as being right for New South Wales a few weeks ago, were they to be told that it was wrong in this country? One was driven to the conclusion that the reason, and the only reason why the Government had abandoned a determination deliberately and
1720
carefully formed, and stated with weighty arguments to this House on the Second Reading of the Government measure, was that they yielded not to argument, but to clamour from below the gangway. The hon. Member for Leicester and some of his friends were entitled to laugh, but he did not think the Government were entitled to laugh. They had their reward in a three-cornered contest at Cockermouth. Hon. Gentlemen below the gangway had the only claim to merriment in the Parliamentary situation. He happened to be speaking last night in the Cockermouth Division, and a circular was distributed outside the hall informing those who were coming to the meeting that he was the most bitter opponent of trade unions in the House of Commons. In opposing the immunity of trade unions one was not doing a very easy thing in a constituency where there were many trade unionists, because he knew it had already been made the subject of unfavourable comment in his constituency. He should utilise an opportunity in the autumn, however, to explain to his constituents the reason for the speech he had made; and he would at least have the consolation that he held the same views as the Government really held, having reached those views by identical processes of reasoning. He would have the, second consolation that, unlike the Government he had the courage to speak and vote for that view. Did the hon. Gentleman who was excited to such merriment think that it was a popular course to take in the country? Did he suggest that it was more popular not to vote for this clause? Because it was the more popular course the Government to-night were going publicly to repudiate the conclusions at which as a Government they arrived a few short weeks ago.
*MR. HILLSsaid that as this was the last opportunity they would have of speaking on the merits of the clause, he wished to explain shortly the reasons why he could not vote for Clause 1. The only two possible remedies were to amend the law of agency, or to give trade unions immunity. He thought by far the best way of dealing with the

1721
question was to amend the law of agency. It was of itself an exceptional piece of legislation; but still he thought it was justified. No doubt it was not half I so far-reaching as the present proposal, nor half so dangerous. He wanted to explain to the Committee what the clause did and what it did not do. It gave complete immunity to a union for any wrongful act that union might choose to do; as had already been shown, a union might in a most intentional and deliberate way utter a libel, and that libel might cause damage.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid he I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the question before the Committee was the postponement of Clause 4, and obviously it was not possible to go into the details of the clause.
*MR. HILLSunderstood that on this discussion they were to be able to discuss the whole merits of the new clause, and also the old clause, and to contrast them.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid in that case, when the new clause was read a second time, this discussion would have to be taken as having settled the question.
*MR. HILLSsaid he was only following the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As he understood, the right hon. Gentleman contrasted the two alternative remedies, and he showed the House his reasons for the course the Government were going to take. He wanted, if he could, to show better reasons against the Government remedy. This clause expressly said that no action for damages was to lie against the union, even for the union's admitted act. The thing that was ruled out was an action for damages. They had not ruled out all legal processes. They had left the 'remedy of injunction. In his opinion, of all remedies that of injunction was the most dangerous.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: On a point of order, this question of injunction is not one of the differences between the two clauses.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman may contrast the policy of the clause, but he must not go into detail.
MR. JOHN WARD: Should I be in order in moving that the Question be now put?
*MR. HILLSsaid the principle raised by this clause could only be dealt with by showing the machinery of the clause.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid this was not a difference between the two forms.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid the question of injunction was not a matter raised by the clause as amended.
*MR. HILLSsaid with all respect it was almost impossible to discuss this clause unless they discussed what it did not do as well as what it did. His great objection to it was that it was a half-way house, and ought to go much further. One reason, and the main reason, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer give of his change of view was that now the master was in the same position as the workman. That was the great reason lie had for objecting to it. Placing trade unions outside the law was much less far-ranching than the plan to put employers outside the law. If this new clause was passed they put them into a sort of debatable land, and said they were there to tight out their differences there, and flint they could not complain, because each had an equal chance. Perhaps they could not complain; but he did think that the community had a very strong right to complain. All these exceptional positions led to a very strained and dangerous state of feeling. As long as they were confined in the ordinary processes of law it was all right so far as the public were concerned.
SIR JOHN WALTON: May I ask whether the hon. Member is in order in discussing this matter now? He will have an opportunity of doing so when I have moved the new clause.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is discussing the question of the policy of the new clause. It is

1723
unnecessary at present to go into the details of the new clause. The new clause will, of course, be examined on its merits when we come to it.
*MR. HILLSsaid that if they were to have an opportunity of discussing the new clause as a whole he would sit down gladly. What he wished to know was whether they would have an opportunity of talking on the clause as a whole.
MR. MARKHAM.: I beg to move that the Question be now put.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANdid not accept the Motion
*MR. BOWLESsaid it really seemed to him that they were in an extraordinary position indeed in connection with this proposal.
SIR.JOHN WALTON: I beg to move that, the Quest ion be now put.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANdid not accept the Motion.
*MR. BOWLESsaid he understood that the original policy of the Government on this matter which they now proposed to abandon was received with considerable approval, or at all events, without any considerable disapproval, by hon. Gentlemen behind the Attorney-General. But the moment after that solemnly considered policy had been announced hon. Gentlemen below the gangway expressed their dislike of it, upon which, within a short time indeed, the Government proposed absolutely to go back upon their original policy, and substitute in effect the proposal of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, and they did that without having been good enough to give to the Committee a shadow or a scintilla of reason for having made this extraordinary volte face. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told then the grounds on which he personally had been induced to change his opinion. That was an interesting confession, whatever one might think of the substance of it. But it was not made on behalf of the Government.
MR. MARKHAM: On a point of order, I beg to call your attention to the fact that the hon. Member has used arguments which have been repeatedly addressed to the House.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: These arguments have been used repeatedly by previous speakers.
*MR. BOWLESsaid he would take care not to repeat them. All he desired to say was that he found himself in considerable difficulty if this tremendous alteration was to be made on the part of the Govern merit without the slightest reason being given. If the Attorney-General desired to offer an explanation of the Amendment he and his friends would give way, but the Motion ought not to be agreed to without some information as to the grounds on which it was proposed.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The hon. Gentleman is not speaking to the clause at all. There is nothing in his remarks to show that he understands the clause. The Attorney-General did explain his reason for postponing the clause.
MR. CLOUGH: I beg to move that the Question be now put.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANdid not, accept the Motion.
LORD R. CECIL(who was received with cries of "Divide") said he did not intend to be put down by hon. Gentlemen opposite. So far as he was concerned he desired to have some reason for the Motion which the Attorney-General had made. He should be very sorry if the action of hon. Members opposite were to compel him to move that the Chairman report Progress and ask leave to sit again, which, he believed, was the constitutional method of protesting against unauthorised interruption. It was not a course he should care to pursue unless it was absolutely necessary. The Attorney-General moved that the clause be postponed, and the only reason he gave for the Motion was that he desired to move a different clause altogether. He proposed to substitute a

1725
clause for the one at present in the Bill. His hon. friend the Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool had called attention to some of the observations which the Attorney-General made in proposing the clause. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that not only did he propose the clause, but he recommended it on the strongest possible grounds, saying that it was required by every consideration of justice and policy. But he went further, and said that it was a clause which was recommended by the responsible leaders of trade unions as a just and proper clause which ought to be inserted in the Bill. He quoted the hon. Member for Derby, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth. The right hon. Member for Morpeth said—
"the unions should, in my opinion, frankly accept responsibility for the acts of their agents, when the agents are acting by the authority and under the direction of the executive committee."
MR. DALZIEL: I wish to ask whether the noble Lord is in order in going into the merits of the clause.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already said that the only question that can be discussed is the postponement of the clause. If the clause is postponed, the merits of the new clause must be considered later on.
LORD R. CECILsaid he would endeavour to make his observations as general as possible. It was on the principle laid down by the right hon.

AYES.

Abraham, Win. (Cork, N.E.)

Benn,Sir J.Williams(Devonp'rt

Bryre,Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen

Agnew, George William

Benn,W.(T'w'rHamlets,S. Geo.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Alden, Percy

Berridge, T. H. D.

Buruyeat, W. J. D.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Bertram, Julius

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Astbury, John Meir

Bethell,J. H. (Essex, Romford)

Byles, William Pollard

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Cameron, Robert

Baker, Joseph A. (Finshury, E

Billson, Alfred

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Causton,Rt.Hn. Richard Knight

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Black,Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

Charming, Francis Allston

Barnard, E. B.

Bottomley, Horatio

Cheethain, John Frederick

Barnes, G. N.

Brace, William

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Brigg, John

Clancy, John Joseph

Beale, W. P.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Clarke, C. Goddard

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Brodie, H. C.

Cleland, J. W.

Bell, Richard

Brooke, Stopford

Clough, W.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Brunner, J.F.L.(Lancs., Leigh)

Collins,Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

Member for Morpeth that the Attorney-General based himself when recommending the clause which he now proposed to postpone without giving a single reason to show that the condition of affairs had changed, or that his opinions had altered, with the view of omitting it from the Bill altogether, and substituting for it a provision which had been put forward as substantially in accordance with Bills introduced by hon. Members below the gangway. The Committee were not being fairly treated. He thought the Attorney-General should give some kind of reason for this change of front. It could not be merely that he was afraid of the vote and the influence of hon. Members below the gangway. At any rate, he was sure he would be the last to say in the House that that was his reason. They were entitled to some reason for this change of policy. He agreed that it was very tiresome for hon. Members to be kept waiting for their Bill, but whether they were impatient or not the Committee were entitled, quite apart from hon. Members representing labour or any fraction of the community, to know the reasons of the Attorney-General for going back from the strong views which he expressed so lately as Marsh 28th. He asked the Attorney-General, before the Question was put, to give some kind of reason for his change of attitude in the matter.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 246; Noes, 22. (Division List No. 310.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Jowet, F. W.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Cooper, G. J.

Joyce, Michael

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Corbett, C.H.(SussexE.Grinst'd

Kekewich, Sir George

Robertson,Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee'

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Kelley, George D.

Robertson.SirG.Scott (Bradf'rd

Cowan, W. H.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Cox, Harold

Laidlaw, Robert

Robinson, S.

Cremer, William Randal

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Crooks, William

Lamont, Norman

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Crossley, William J.

Leese, SirJosephF.(Accringtou)

Rose, Charles Day

Dalziel, James Henry

Lehman, R. C.

Rowlands, J.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lewis, John Herbert

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Dickinson, W.H.(St.Paneras,S.

Lough, Thomas

Schwann,Sir C. E. (Manchester]

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lyell, Charles Henry

Scott,A.H. (Ashton under Lyne

Duckworth, James

Lynch, H, B.

Sears, J. E.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Seaverns, J. H.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Seddon, J.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Maclean, Donald

Shackleton, David James

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Macpherson, J. T.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Elibank, Master of

Mac Veagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Essex, R. W.

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Eve, Harry Trelawney

M'Callum, John M.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Everett, R. Lacey

M'Kenna, Reginald

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Fenwiek, Charles

M'Killop, W.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Ferens, T. R.

M'Liren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Smeaton. Donald Mackenzie

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Maddison, Frederick

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Mallet, Charles E.

Snowden, P.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Stanley,Hon. A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Mirkham, Arthur Basil

Steadman, W. C.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Marks,G. Croydon(Launeeston)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Gill, A. H.

Marnham, F. J.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Gladstone, Rt.Hn.Herbert John

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Glover, Thomas

Massie, J.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Menzies, Walter

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Gooch, George Peabody

Molteno, Percy Alport

Sullivan, Donal

Grant, Corrie

Montagu, E. S.

Summerbell, T.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Morrell, Philip

Thomasson, Franklin

Hall, Frederick

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Thompson.J.W.H.(Somerset,E

Hareourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Murphy, John

Thorne, William

Hardie, J.Keir (MerthyrTydvil)

Napier, T.B.

Toulmin, George

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Newnes, F. (Notts., Bassctlaw)

Ure, Alexander

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

Verney, F. W.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Nolan, Joseph

Vivian, Henry

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Norman, Henry

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Walters, John Tudor

Haworth, Arthur A.

O' Brien,Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds,S.)

Hazel, Dr. E.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Hazlelon, Richard

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Grady, J.

Ward,W.Dudley (Southampton

Henderson, J. M.(Aberdeen, W.)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N.

Weir, James Galloway

Henry, Charles S.

O'Malley, William

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Higham, John Sharp

Parker, James (Halifax)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Hodge, John

Paul, Herbert

Whitehead, Rowland

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Paulton, James Mellor

Whitelcy, J. H. (Halifax)

Horniman, Emslie John

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek

Wiles, Thomas

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester

Wilkie Alexander

Hudson, Walter

Power, Patrick Joseph

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Hyde, Clarendon

Price, C.E.(Edinb'gh, Central)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Radford, G.H.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Raphael, Herbert H.

Wilson, W.T. (Westhoughton)

Jackson, R.S.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Yoxall, James Henry

Jacoby, James Alfred

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Jardiue, Sir J.

Rees, J. D.

Jenkins, J.

Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Richardson, A.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Rickett, J. Compton

1728

1729

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Balcarres, Lord

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(City Lond.)

Forster, Henry William

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark;)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hills, J. W.

Valentia, Viscount

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Keswick, William

Carlile, E. Hildred

Parkes, Ebenezer

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Lord Robert Cecil and Mr. Bowles.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cave, George

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Clause 5 agreed to.
SIR E. CARSONasked the Attorney-General whether he had considered the effect of the language of the Trade Unions Acts, 1871 and 1876, and whether he intended to have any different definition from that contained in those Acts of the term "trade dispute." He did not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman's inquiries in that question had gone so far that he would be able to give him an answer, but it seemed to him a very important matter.
SIR JOHN WALTONquite agreed that it would be necessary, but there would be an opportunity of considering that definition, and he thought he need not delay the Committee now.
New Clause:
*SIR JOHN WALTONin introducing a now clause (Prohibitions of actions of tort against trade unions except in special circumstances) said that he had been appealed to by the noble Lord the hon. Member for Marylebone to make some explanation of the reason why he put down this new clause on the Paper, having regard to the fact that it was a very different proposal from that which appeared in the Bill. The noble Lord was quite entitled to an explanation of that kind, and he thought he could very briefly indicate what he understood to be the reasons which brought about that change, and which certainly influenced him in regard to that change. The Bill undoubtedly proposed, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained, a different method of dealing With the grievance which had arisen, and of which the trade unionists complained, and he gave strong reasons for supporting it. He also pointed out the alternative method, and
1730
showed, as he thought it was his duty to show to the House, the arguments which in his opinion could be fairly urged against it, and which, when they were considered, left the advantage to the proposals which appeared in the Government Bill. But he stated, as the members of the Committee would remember, that the question was one for the House, and one for the decision of the House; and that statement was subsequently repeated by the Prime Minister in the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne. That alternative was left to the House for this very obvious reason, that the two proposals were different methods of accomplishing one result. The result was the remedy of a grievance of which trade unions complained, and which had in its operation very largely diminished their funds, and had exposed their funds to further attack in the form of litigation similar to that which had been successfully brought against them. Either method would have relieved the trade unions from that evil. The one would have been, and undoubtedly was, more complete in its character than the other. The Government proposal sought to relieve them from responsibility for any action which was not expressly authorised, or effectively authorised by their governing body. On the other hand, the proposal of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne was substantially the present clause, that was to say, a proposal that no action whatever should be brought against these unions. The choice between those two methods was left to the House, and the House contained large numbers of employers of labour, and a large number of Members of very great experience, and he could not imagine a tribunal more qualified to decide whether or not the existing

1731
state of the law, as it was believed to be, should or should not continue. The real substantial proposal was this. The trade union legislation of 1871 and 1875 gave a charter to trade unions. That charter was universally construed as conferring an immunity in regard to all actions against trade unions as corporations, by means of which their funds would be made available for meeting claims for damages, and in that sense the charter had been understood for a period of thirty years. It had been generally accepted, and during its currency there were no violations of the terms on which it was granted. There was no apprehension with regard to abuses on the part of those bodies, and therefore there were thirty years of experience which would give the House very good ground for enabling it to determine whether or not that lease of immunity should be renewed. The conflict was whether they should reformulate the law with regard to the future on a correct and legal basis, or whether the existing state of things supposed to be established in 1871 should remain unaltered for an indefinite period. That was the question which the House had to decide, and the Government came to the conclusion that the decision was very clear and explicit on the matter. There was, first of all, the debate on the Government Bill, in which many hon. members below the gangway on the other side expressed their views in very strong terms, and large numbers of Members of the Liberal Party, sitting behind and below the gangway, expressed full concurrence with the views of hon. Members below the gangway on the other side; so far it was clearly the general feeling that the status quo should be left undisturbed. There were also hon. Members who sat above the gangway on the other side of the House who took that view, and who thought that the state of the law as it had existed for thirty years should continue undisturbed. Under the circumstances it seemed to him a more important matter to settle this question than to decide between two alternative proposals, against each of which there were objections and in support of each of which there were strong arguments. No less a person than the
1732
Leader of the Opposition said that he had no apprehension as to the future operation of this clause.
SIR E. CARSON: When did he say anything of the sort?
SIR JOHN WALTONreplied that on the Second Reading the Leader of the Opposition said he had full confidence in those who managed trade unions and in their moderation, although on general principles he thought it unwise to confer on any class such powers as were proposed. This clause was of a similar kind to those which had been included in previous Bills. In the first place, the Government wished to make it perfectly plain on the face of the clause that it was to be bilateral—it did not confer upon workmen a privilege that was not extended to unions of employers. Then it was provided that nothing in this clause should affect the liability of the trustees of unions to be sued in the events provided in Section 9 of the Trade Unions Act of 1871. The Government wished to protect trade union funds and make them as secure as it was possible to make them. If any hon. Member could show that any Amendment of the clause would make the funds more secure he would accept such Amendment. But while the funds of the union were to be protected, the trustees by the proviso were to be liable to sue or to be sued in any action, suit, or prosecution touching or concerning their property. They might prevent any person from trespassing on their property, pulling down their buildings, blocking up their ancient lights, or robbing their funds. All these rights could be exercised through the trustees, and there was a considerable obligation upon them of responsibility to other persons, as, for instance, if they blocked up the light of a man on the other side of the road. The trustees would remain liable under Section 9 of the Act of 1871. So far as it was consistent with the main object in view, the Government had sought to leave the status quo as little changed as possible.
New Clause:
" An action against a trade union, whether of workmen or masters, or against any members thereof on behalf of themselves and all other

1733
members of the trade union for the recovery of damages in respect of any tortious act alleged to have been committed by or on behalf of the trade union, shall not be entertained by any Court, provided that nothing in this section shall affect the liability of the trustees of such unions to be sued in the events provided for by the Trades Union Act, 1871, Section 9."
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
*MR. BOWLES, on a point of order, asked whether the proposed new clause was not outside the "order of leave" of the Bill. The Bill was to provide for the regulation of trade unions and trade disputes, but he submitted that this clause was a provision for putting them above and beyond all regulation whatever.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not think the clause was outside the order of leave. It was, he thought, quite in order, and there was a similar provision in Clause 4 of the original Bill.
SIR E. CARSONdid not wonder that the hon. Member for Norwood had raised that point, because a wider exemption than was now being proposed had never been given, and he defied anyone to contradict him when he said that no precedent could be found in the whole course of the laws of this country for the clause submitted by the Attorney-General. What the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to have said so as to make the thing quite complete was—
" As regards tortious or wrongful acts committed by trade unions, all the laws of the realm, whether statute or common, are hereby repealed."
That was a pretty large enactment to suggest at the end of a prolonged sitting. On the might have put it in another interesting form. He might have said—
"the King can do no wrong; neither can a trade union."
The hon. and learned Gentleman might have been even more candid. He did not see why he should not have said that on an action for an admitted wrong committed by a trade union, with admitted damage done, with
1734
admitted malice, with admitted crime causing damage, it should be in the power of the secretary of a trade union to enter a nolle prosequi, so as to prevent the law of the land being brought to play in the prevention of such acts, for that was the effect of the Attorney-General's clause. He wanted nothing more to condemn this clause than the words the Attorney-General himself used on the First Reading of the Bill, and which he had now ignominiously eaten. The hon. and learned Gentleman apparently thought it consistent with the great office he held, and with the high position he held in his profession and in this House, to come down now and say—'I told you on a previous occasion that black was black, but now I tell you that black is white.' Anything more preposterous than the line that hid been taken by His Majesty's Government with reference to this Amendment he could hardly conceive, and it was all the more preposterous because they knew what was the claim of hon. Members below the gangway. If this was a matter which was sprung upon them and they could not go on, he could well understand the position of His Majesty's Government. But how did the matter stand? The claim was made when the Party opposite was in power for immunity of this character and for the repeal of the common law and statute law of the land with regard to trade unions. The Government had that clause before them and also the report of the Royal Commission. They had those matters before them, and they came down to this House and through the mouth of the Attorney-General denounced in language which he would not dare to use—he never laid claim to the eloquence which adorned the benches opposite and which had put them on those benches and removed himself and his friends from them although they were very glad to be got rid of—the proposal for the abolition of the rule of law that the wrong doer should be made to redress his wrong. If trade unions were exempt from this liability the Royal Commission pointed out they would form the only exception, and it would then be held to be right that vast and powerful institutions should be permanently licensed to apply the power they possessed to ruin others and inflict

1735
damage to the extent of many thousands of pounds and not be liable to make good that damage out of their funds. Such a policy they declared would be opposed to the very idea of law, order and justice. And what did the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, who was accountable to this House for law, order and justice, do? He came down and proposed a clause which in the view of the Commission was opposed to the very idea of law, order and justice. He did not envy the position of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Even with the emoluments of office he should be sorry to be in the place of the Attorney-General, who now proposed what he had before denounced, and which a Royal Commission declared to be opposed to the very idea of law and order and justice. [LABOUR cries of "A packed Commission; absolutely packed."] He was not picking any quarrel with hon. Members below the gangway, who had taken a perfectly consistent course. When they took up that position last year he had the honour of fighting them almost single-handed in the Committee. He fought them as hard as ever he could, and he was bound to say that they beat him even with his own Party in power, and he hoped he took his beating good-humouredly. He never pretended that he thought their proposals were otherwise than harmful, and neither for their support nor any other political support would he have put forward a proposal of this kind, which whether he was right or they were right went to the very root of the industrial prosperity of this country. He believed that nobody should be beyond the scope of the law; but although he disagreed with hon. Gentlemen below the gangway he respected their views, and he hoped they would give him credit for supporting the views which he held: he had no quarrel with them. He denied that for many years the trade unions had enjoyed this immunity. As far as there had been an absence of decisions holding them liable, it arose simply from the fact that trade unions were originally illegal associations, and therefore could neither sue nor be sued. But directly that was altered they took their place alongside ordinary corporations. [Cries
1736
of "No."] Was there any decision of the House of Commons in favour of trade unions being held immune from liability for wrongful acts to the property of others? He defied anybody to bring forward any Resolution in any such sense whatever. He admitted that the law of agency pressed very hardly against trade unions, but it also pressed hardly against every company and every individual. That law ought to be mitigated, but in favour of all classes of His Majesty's subjects, and not of one class only. The Attorney-General said that he gave the same right to masters; but they had never asked to be placed above and beyond the law. If they did he should use exactly the same argument against them as he was now using against trade unions. Why should they be placed above the law? He was not at all sure from his own observation of the trend of events that the time might not be coming, if it was not already come, when they would have to legislate against the combination and association of capital. He was not sure that the time had not come when men acquired wealth not alone for the luxury wealth might bring them but for the great power it might bring in increasing their weight and importance, or in decreasing the weight and importance of others. He was not at all sure that the time might not come when they would have to deal with that in this country; when they had combinations and associations of capital to crush out small men and to prevent that individual effort by which men rose. If that time came and if it was approaching, in this Bill were they not laying down a principle which might be injurious not merely to the question which they had under discussion to-day but in those matters which might be of vast importance to the whole commercial interest and progress of the country? If they laid down now as the Attorney-General did lay down—he said without disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman foolishly laid down—this principle they were going to put these men of capital, with great power and influence in this country by reason of their wealth, beyond and above the law. But if they were going to be immune from the law outside trade disputes he could not think the time would be long in coming when

1737
they would repent of what they had done this day, so easily and so lightly, because like many other things it seemed to be plausible at first sight. But when such matters came to be worked out as between the parties they sometimes found they had really done the greatest disservice to the interests they desired to serve by placing these powers in the hands of others. The clause he supposed would be passed. He had not the least hope that anything he might say would have the least influence on anyone present. [Cheers.] He was quite prepared for those cheers, al-thought he did not want them in the least, but he was glad to have made his protest. Both to himself personally and to his constituency it mattered nothing. If he had any interest in it at all it was in the litigation which he foresaw would necessarily arise under the Bill. But he could assure the House in the observations he made he had very much higher interests at heart than those which hon. Gentlemen who cheered him had. There was one other observation he wished to make, and it was this. He knew the opponents of these proposals were represented very often in the country as desiring to subject to execution under action taken into Court the benevolent and charitable funds which trade unions possessed. For his part he should be very sorry to be associated with any such idea. These sick, benevolent and other funds which trade unions possessed he believed ought to and could be placed beyond all risks so that they might be applied to those objects for which the members of the union had subscribed. He believed that in such an amendment of the law they would be acting in strict conformity with the principles of law, because any person who held a trust fund could place that trust fund out of the reach of his ordinary creditors or obligations of the law. He wished to state most emphatically, and he believed it was the opinion of everybody who supported the view that he was putting forward, that to the fullest extent these funds, benevolent and charitable, not only might be, but ought to be set apart, so that whatever obligation or liability might be incurred by a trade union these funds should not be allowed to be made available for any purpose except that for which they had
1738
been subscribed. So far as he was concerned, and so far as hon. Members sitting behind him were concerned, they had always desired these funds to be protected. He ended where he commenced; he said that the House ought to be very careful before they put above and beyond the law any corporation or any number of individuals or any other associations of persons in this country. And when they said that trade unions might not be cast for damages in regard to an illegal or criminal act or an act against property that caused damage, they were getting rid of all the fundamental principle which the law of this country possessed, upon which, whether he be a master or a man, whether he be the head of a shipping company or a docker, or whether he be a man attempting to resist the tyranny of the mob, the liberty of every man in this country depended.
MR. SIMONsaid he was afraid it could not be palatable to all the Members of the Committee that so large a share of the discussion should have come to be taken up by the lawyers in the House. On the other hand it was unquestionably one of the matters on which litigation might arise and where in consequence those who earned their living by the law should offer their opinion on the subject. He had risen because he had noticed throughout the debate a point of view of what was supposed to be done by this new clause which, with all respect to much greater lawyers than himself, he declined to accept. The proposition put forward was that if the clause was carried they were going to put the trade unions in a position such as no other association had ever been known to occupy. Was there any reason for such a suggestion, could no one suggest other associations possessed of great funds highly organised and capable of considerable mischief, and yet whose funds could not be touched? Let them take a simple and popular instance, the Tariff Reform League, a body with great and somewhat mysterious funds, a body highly organised and capable as some thought of evil as well as good. It was possible that its funds might be used for mischievous purposes. But would

1739
anybody get up and say that if Mr. Vince was to perpetrate a tort, say publish a libel on the members of the Cobden Club, would he be jeopardising the funds of the Tariff Reform League, and that they would be liable?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, certainly.
MR. SIMONsaid he should like to see that action tried. The whole of the discussion had caused a deal of confusion; there were many bodies in England to-day with large funds at their disposal, which no lawyer would recommend anybody to sue. If hon. Members wanted to sue a West End club they had to pick out the secretary or some member of the committee, and the damages, if they got them, would come out of the pockets of those persons, and not out of the funds of the club at all. He asked whether that which was the plain state of affairs at the time trade unions became legal was to be continued in truth and in fact and be their position now. It was no answer to that observation to say that till the year 1870 trade unions were illegal associations. Since 1870, when trade unions became legal associations, these actions were not brought, and they were entitled on all sides of the House to point to the fact and to rely on it that although since 1870 it had been possible to bring such actions nobody had thought of doing so. And lawyers who spoke with such certainty now, if they had been asked ten years ago would have said such actions could not be brought. What Parliament was believed to have accomplished was acted on for a generation without any of the mischief that had been suggested would arise. There was another reason why special consideration should be given to trade unions in that matter. One need not be a lawyer to see that trade unions had very great difficulty in getting level justice in a Court. One of the matters that would be thoroughly approved of was that the clause provided that an action for damage should not be brought against a trade union, because damages were assessed by juries, and in the case of masters special juries. The Workmen's Compensation Act worked in that way. The man who was going to claim could
1740
not choose a jury. No workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act could choose a jury, because Parliament took away from them the right of getting a County Court jury. They therefore never got a jury of their own class. That was perfectly proper in order that level justice might be done, and that being so they were right in saying that if an action was brought against a trade union it ought to be left to a judge to decide. For this reason he submitted that the proposed new clause was abundantly justified. Since 1870 trade unions had conducted themselves with credit and ability, without violence, and with that good sense which was in itself the best of all reasons why they should get the protection they now asked. It sometimes appeared as if lawyers were horrified that no action could be brought. Was there, even from the lawyer's point of view, anything so wonderful about it? Three eminent Lords Justices in the Court of Appeal once declared, in Allen v. Flood, that such an action could not be brought. In determining what the law should be for the future they should not be debarred by a decision which had produced such unexpected consequences. They should legislate for the situation as they found it, and support the clause of the Attorney-General.
*MR. CLAVELL SALTERsaid the point from Allen v. Flood, on which the hon. Member had rested his able speech, was no better than a technicality. Whatever might be the precise technical position of the trade unions, what was it in substance that this new clause intended to introduce into the daily life of the country? When the clause had become law a union, by direct order of its most responsible leaders and by direct action of its recognised and accredited agents, might do the worst of injury to a man through the power of its funds, and yet those funds would be exempt from making compensation. Both masters and men would only have to form themselves into a trade union and they would be raised above the law; and he looked forward with dread to what industrial warfare would be like when both parties to the dispute had been thus put above the law. What are they doing here? They were raising

1741
above the law and rendering immune every trade union in the country. What struck him about this matter was that in order to remedy that which they were told by the leaders of organised labour was their real grievance it was not necessary to do the extraordinary thing which the Hou3e was asked to do. It was said to be hard that their funds should be made liable for the reckless acts of those who should be personally liable. If it were desired to remove that grievance, surely it could have been done without making this revolutionary change. Surely they might have had special provision in reference to trade unions, that the ordinary rules of agency should be relaxed, and that it should be open to them promptly to disavow the acts of branch secretaries and persons of that kind, on which condition the union should be free from the ordinary consequences. The grievance put forward did not justify anything of the kind proposed. He spoke with real feeling when he said that he had spent all his life in helping to administer the law in this country, and perhaps those who did not belong to the great profession of the law hardly realised how lawyers felt about a suggestion of this kind, and how proud they had always been of British law, its fearlessness and purity, and, above all, its equality between man and man. They were for the first time in modern history openly setting up a privileged class of men who, when proceedings were taken against them as against any other men, would be allowed to say, "I can, do what I have done because I am a trade unionist; I belong to it trade union, and I am immune." He did not know whether to laugh or to weep, when he found a change of this kind being introduced at the outset of their career by the so-called Liberal Party.
MR. PAULsaid it was not part of his duty, and certainly not his inclination, to defend the change of policy of His Majesty's Government so admirably illustrated at an earlier period of the evening by the ingenious speech of his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But he had observed that sometimes a body of very clever men
1742
would do what the least clever of them would not do if left to himself, isolated from the contagion of collected wisdom. But the question they had to consider was not how this new clause came to be on the Paper, but whether it was a good clause now that it was there. He had said, for reasons which he would not repeat, that he did not believe in the general doctrine of the imperative mandate, but one of the few promises which he did give to his constituents before his election, and which be believed was given by the large majority of hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House, was that he would vote for the Trade Union Bill introduced into the late House of Commons by the hon. Member for Clitheroe, of which this clause embodied the most substantial part. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in approaching this question from the point of view of a lawyer, appealed to the great power which combinations had in the United States, and suggested that if they gave to workmen, and also to employers, some special privilege they might hereafter abuse it as it was abused in the United States to-day. He did not think that the greatest hindrance to business in this House was the existence of a Party system. He thought it was the too great abundance of eminent and distinguished lawyers who sat in this House, not one of whom could be found to tell the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that a trade union was not a corporation. The eminent lawyers who sat here seemed to be too much under the influence of the knowledge of the law, which they had laboriously acquired, and which they variously interpreted, and they did not like any legislation which conflicted with what they had learnt. It was said that nothing in this country was above the law. There was one thing in this country which was above the law, however, and that was Parliament. They were here to say not what the law was, but what the law ought to be; not whether it coincided with decisions which had already been given, but whether it was in the general interest of. the community at large. How did this question come before them at all? It had a legal origin. It arose from the decision given in another place. Another

1743
place did not cease to be another place because it met in the morning instead of the afternoon, and because it consisted of four or five Members instead of twenty or thirty. 1'he impartiality of the judges in ordinary cases in which they had no interest was as undoubted as it was beneficial; but anyone who told him that a man who had all his life been interested in politics and held strong political views could altogether divest himself of politics when he sat upon the Bench, made a draft upon his credulity, which, large as his credulity was, he confessed it was unable to honour. If anybody wanted to know what an eminent and a universally respected lawyer might feel about trade unions, he recommended him to read the judgment of Lord Lindley in the Taff Vale case. They were very fond of saying here that things were not Party questions. It was his belief that if a Motion could be made in this House by the Archangel Gabriel, and if it were seconded, as it probably would be, by the hon. Member for Morpeth, it would be a Party question in less than half an hour. But he was a little surprised that any question connected with trade unions should be regarded as one of Party. Why, his hon. friends below the gangway, the Labour Members, knew perfectly well that the Conservative Party bad done quite as much for trade unions as they who now sat on the Ministerial side of the House. It was the Liberal Government of Mr. Gladstone who first gave the trade in dons their charter of freedom. It was the Government of Mr. Disraeli who improved that Act by the Act of 1875, giving them privileges which for thirty years they had universally believed in and enjoyed, and he was sure it must be a subject of great gratification to Lord Cross in his honoured old age that no one had done more for the benefit of trade unions than he. If it were proposed for the first time that a clause of this kind should be passed, and that trade unions should receive the immunity which under it they would enjoy, he could quite understand that reasonable objection might be taken; but were they to learn nothing from the experience of the past? The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had told them that it was for others in the future whom they
1744
did not know and whose characters they could not conjecture. If it were not disrespectful he would say it were almost childish to remark that the course of conduct pursued for a whole generation by a large and influential body of men was not the policy their successors would pursue in the future. It was upon that practical experience of the past, and not upon any theory, ingenious or otherwise, or upon any knowledge of jurisprudence which he did not profess, that he ventured most humbly and respectfully to submit that the passing of this clause would be in the best interests of Parliament and of all classes of people in the country.
SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that, with regard to the legal element in this House, it was remarkable how their views really contradicted each other. The hon. Gentlemen on the other side said there were no organisations which came under the operation of the law except trade unions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the very admirable speech he gave a short time ago, said the only organisations which was above the law would be trade unions and combinations of employers. Which was right? He thought it could be said they were perfectly justified in protesting against the introduction of the new 4th Clause. If they were in want of a series of arguments to justify them in objecting to this new clause it would be found in the speech of the Attorney-General himself on the introduction of the Bill in the earlier part of this session. It was crammed full of argument and illustrations from speeches by different Members of this House to the effect that trade unions should be responsible for their actions. If that was the reason in March, he could not quite understand why it was not the reason in August, and he must say that up to the present time they had not had a sufficient reason for the complete change of front on this question. He supposed that when the Bill was introduced in the first place by the Attorney-General it was not considered by the Government. Why did the Attorney-General and the Cabinet turn right round in their view on this question? He thought this House was entitled to have a full and proper

1745
explanation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made another argument; he said the justification for giving this immunity to trade unions was because it was given to the employers. He thought that was a very poor argument. In the first place the employers had never asked for it, and they did not desire the privileges which this clause gave them. Besides, the conditions were not the same between the employer on the one side and the employee on the other. It all resolved itself into a question of damages. As he understood this Bill, they could not approach the trade union collectively. They could approach a working man individually. But what chance was there of getting damages from a working man individually? Supposing 2,000 workmen employed by a master stopped working at a given time; could the master summon those 2,000 before a magistrate? The idea was absurd.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsaid that was precisely what was done in a South Wales case.
SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that, generally speaking, the idea was absurd. In the case of an employer of labour thousands of pounds were often at stake, and sometimes the very existence of a firm. He could imagine cases where the action of a trade union would inflict untold injury upon the employer, and to say that on that account the employers were to stand on the same basis as the workmen was a misstatement and misapplication altogether. The conditions were not the same and they could not make them the same, and therefore, to say that they conferred these privileges on the working men because they were given to the employers under the same conditions was merely playing with words. It was a proposal to put one section of the community above the law of the country. He thought they should view with concern any proposal to alter the law in such a way as to put any section of the people above the law of the land. He was afraid that any legislation of that kind would be prejudicial to the general interest.
*MR. COMPTON RICKETTsaid he found in going about the country that the Taff Vale judgment had dealt a blow at the trade unions, and particularly the smaller ones, which was barely realised by the House, In some cases, subscriptions had fallen off, and the membership had declined. If there had not been hope of redress from this House he had little doubt that the decline would have been still more marked and would have ultimately threatened the existence of some of the unions. Nothing could be more disastrous for the country at large than that these unions should not continue to be representative of the trades for which they spoke. No intelligent employer of experience would clef ire to revert to the state of things of forty or fifty years ago, and be compelled to make terms with a mass of unorganised labour. That often meant an agreement with one set of men, and a repudiation of that agreement on the part of the others. Under such conditions employers would suffer far more than if there were a recognised leadership at the disposal of the men. He was arguing the question on the basis of expediency, as this House was really called upon to decide a practical issue. In dealing with the clause from the legal point of view, it must lie remembered that there was always the right of action against an individual member of the union. Personal responsibility had not been cancelled. The man who broke the law could be made answerable for his misdeeds. In his opinion, the continued existence of the unions of this country depended upon the protection of their funds. He had heard workmen say more than once that they would not continue to subscribe at personal sacrifice if the money so contributed was to be confiscated by the lawyers, or to go as technical damages. Whatever might be its opinion in the abstract, was the House prepared to witness the gradual decay of these great labour associations as the result of the Talf Vale judgment? he urged that they were justified in passing the clause on the ground of common sense, and he believed that neither workmen nor employers would be a party to a scandalous misuse of their immunity.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 257; Noes, 29, (Division List No. 317.)

AYES

Abraham, William (Cork, N.K.)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lough, Thomas

Agnew, George William

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Alden, Percy

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lynch, H. B.

Allen. A. Acland (Christchurch)

Elibank, Master of

Macdonald J. R. (Leicester)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs)

Astbury, John Heir

Essex, R. W.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Maclean, Donald

Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

Everett, R. Lacey

Macpherson, J. T.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Fenwick, Charles

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Ferens, T. R.

MacVeigh,(Charles (Donegal, E.)

Barnard, E. B.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

M'Callum, John M.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

M'Kenna, Reginald

Beale, W. P.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

M'Killop, W.

Beaumont, Hubert (Eastbourne)

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Gill, A. H.

Maddison, Frederick

Bell, Richard

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Mallet, Charles E.

Bellairs, Carlyon.

Glover, Thomas

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonport)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Markham, Arthur Basil

Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)

Gooch, George Peabody

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Berridge, T. D. H.

Grant, Corrie

Marnham, F. J.

Bertram, Julius

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Bethell J. H. (Essex, Romford)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Massie, J.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Menzies, Walter

Billson, Alfred

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Hall, Frederick

Montagu, E. S.

Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Brace, William

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Morrell, Philip

Brigg, John

Hardy, George A, (Suffolk)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Murphy, John

Brodie, H. C

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Napier, T. B.

Brooke, Stopford

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Brunner, J.F.L. (Lanes., Leigh)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Nicholls, George

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast')

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Nolan, Joseph

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Norman, Henry

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Hazleton, Richard

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Brien, Kendal fTipperary Mid.)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Byles, William Pollard

Henry, Charles S.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Cameron, Robert

Higham, John Sharp

O'Grady, J.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hodge, John

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Holden, E. Hopkinson

O'Malley, William

Channing, Francis Allston

Horniman, Emslie John

Parker, James (Halifax)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Paul, Herbert

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hudson, Walter

Paulton, James Mellor

Clancy, John Joseph

Hyde, Clarendon

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Clarke, C. Goddard

Illingworth, Percy H.

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Cleland, J. W.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Clough, W.

Jackson, R. S.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Jacoby, James Alfred

Price, C. E.(Edinburgh, Central)

Collins, Sir W. J.(St. Pancras, W.

Jardine, Sir J.

Radford, G. H.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Jenkins, J.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Cooper, G. J.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro)

Cowan, W. H.

Jowett, F. W.

Rees, J. D.

Cox, Harold

Joyce, Michael

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

Kekewich, Sir George

Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n)

Cremer, William Randal

Kelley, George D.

Richardson, A.

Crooks, William

Laidlaw, Robert

Rickets, J. Compton

Crossley, William J.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lambert, George

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lamont, Norman

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Dickinson, W.H. (St. Pancras. N.)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lehmann, R. C.

Robertson. J. M. (Tyneside)

Duckworth, James

Lewis, John Herbert

Robinson, S.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Robson, Sir William Snowden

1748

1749

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Rose, Charles Day

Steadman, W. C.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Rowlands, J.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Weir, James Galloway

Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Scott, A.H.(Ashton-under-Lyne)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Sears, J. E.

Sullivan, Donal

Whitehead, Rowland

Seaverns, J.H.

Summerbell, T.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Seddon, J.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wiles, Thomas

Shackleton, David James

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Wilkie, Alexander

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Thomasson, Franklin

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Thompson, J. W.H. (Somerset, E)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Thorne. William

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Toulmin, George

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Ure, Alexander

Yoxall, James Henry

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Verney, F. W.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Vivian, Henry

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Smyth, Thomas P. (Leitrim. S.)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Peace.

Snowden, P.

Walsh, Stephen

NOES.

Balcarres, Lord

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Nield, Herbert

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Craik, Sir Henry

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Bowles, G. Stewart

Forster, Henry William.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Carlile, E. Hildred

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol West)

Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Cave, George

Hills, J. W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Cavendish,,Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

Keswick, William

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

and Viscount Valentia.

MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSmoved, in line 1, after "union," To insert "or any branch thereof."
Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause.
"In line 1, after the word ' union,' to insert the words ' or any branch thereof.' "—(Mr. Clement Edwards.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR E. CARSONasked what was the effect of the Amendment?
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid many branches were themselves unions. He thought they came within the definition of a union, but to remove all doubt it was thought desirable to insert the words proposed. It they were to protect trades unions they should protect the branches.
LORD R. CECILasked whether this would include any branches which were not unions.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsaid it was intended to cover the case of a branch which was a constituent part of a union, but which under Section 7 of the Act of 1871 was not a separate and distinct union. If it were a separate and distinct union it would come within the clause as drafted.
LORD R. CECILthought they were entitled to know what exactly the Attorney-General meant. He only accepted the Amendment because he thought all branches were unions. The hon. Member had told them that some branches were not unions.
Question put, and agreed to.
SIR CHARLES DILKEmoved in line 2, after "members" To insert "or officials." He said the point in these words was a very simple one. Representative actions brought against mere members were prohibited by the words of the section, but he doubted whether representative actions brought against officers of a

1751
union as such, were prohibited. It was to remove that doubt he moved the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSmoved, in line 2, after "all," To insert "or any." He said these words were consequential upon the acceptance of the Amendment as to branches.
Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause.
"In line 2, after the word 'all,' to insert the words 'or any.'"—(Mr. Clement Edwards.)
SIR E. CARSONsaid the hon. Member had not explained his object in moving this Amendment. Did he propose to render members of a trade union immune from any acts they might personally commit?
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I am quite sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman has sufficient knowledge of the law to appreciate the precise effect of the words, which are governed by the words "on behalf of the union."
SIR E. CARSON: When you bring an action by selected individuals who represent the union they represent the whole union. I cannot see what meaning there is in saying "To represent any of the union."
LORD R. CECILsaid the Amendment went a great deal further than the hon. Member supposed. The effect of it would be that if an action were brought against one man for something he had done and he had done it on behalf of himself or two other men the action could not be entertained. The whole object of the clause was to protect trade unions against actions arising out of unauthorised or rash acts of individual members; and the point was that the whole funds of the union ought to be safeguarded from actions at law. But this Amendment went much further and safeguarded against actions being brought not only against the union, but against any member thereof on behalf of himself or others.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsaid the noble Lord was under a misapprehension. There was nothing in the clause or in his Amendment which would prohibit a representative action against one or more individuals selected to represent a number of other individuals for the acts which they were supposed to have committed. What was sought to be prohibited was an action against certain individuals selected when it was alleged that the acton was done on behalf of the society. It was to prevent action against the corpus of the society or any part of it by means of a representative action.
SIR JOHN WALTONpointed out that the wording proposed would make the clause read rather awkwardly, and suggested that the matter should be allowed to stand over until the Report stage.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSassented.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEmoved, in line 3, to leave out from "union" To "shall" In line 5. He said the object of the Amendment was both to simplify the clause by getting rid of words of limitation and also to deal with the point of injunctions. The clause as it stood did not stop an action for injunction against a union or against the trustees. The word tortious which this Amendment would omit was a word of limitation and would not have been used except for the purpose of excluding certain actions which were conceivable, although they would not come under the word tortious or tort. Did the Government intend execution to issue against trade union funds in any case? The Government words did not seem to him to be clear on that point. Were the Government confident that their words would prevent execution issuing against the funds of trade unions in all cases, and if so why was it necessary to limit the clause by the word tortious? He should have thought it would be far simpler to exempt the funds altogether and absolutely.
Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause—
"In line 3, to leave out the words from the word ' union' to the word ' shall' in line 5."— (Sir Charles Dilke.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, down to ' tortious ' in line 4, stand part of the clause."
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he understood the right hon. Gentleman's first point to be whether it was intended by this clause to leave trade unions open to be sued in actions of contract.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: I put it generally.
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid hg did not know any action which, if this clause became law, could be brought against trade unions as such. He could not understand how an action for breach of contract could be brought against a trade union as such under Clause 9 of the Act of 1871. It would have to be against the trustees of the union in whom the funds were vested. With regard to the question of a tortious act, he gathered the effect of the clause would certainly be to exempt the funds from any liability for execution of any sort in such an action; because it said no such action could be brought and therefore no judgment could follow. With regard to injunctions, the object of the clause was to safeguard the funds of the union and in an action for an injunction there was no attempt to claim damages from the funds of the union. Such an action was brought to restrain the commission of an act. He would think it unwise to take any action in the nature of an injunction in such a case, because an injunction, to be effectual, must be in the nature of an action against an individual. He did not think an application for an injunction could be made effective; it could only be effective if against an individual.
MR. J. WARDsaid that as far as he could discover there was only a limitation in regard to the recovery of damages against a trade union, but he thought that there were many actions against
1754
those bodies which were not for the recovery of damages. Consequently he thought the Attorney-General would see that if he wished to make the funds of trade unions absolutely immune from litigation it was necessary to remove the words, "for the recovery of damages," which, having regard to the admissions of the Attorney-General, seem to him to be dangerous and sinister. The Attorney-General had explained that an injunction would be applied for and obtained against individuals, but said that the Court might as a matter of form name the union with those individuals. If after all this discussion and full reflection that represented the state of affairs, it was a very serious matter indeed for the trade unions, and he would advise that these words "for the recovery of damages" should be left out of the clause. He could imagine actions to obtain an injunction in which costs would be piled up and as the trade unions would have to indemnify the trustees for the costs of the defence, they would be just as much endangered under these conditions as they were at the present time.
MR. CAVEsaid this was a very important Amendment, and he thought the Committee ought to understand what it meant. It meant that the trade unions could not be sued for damages for fraud or wrong or violence of any kind. The Amendment proposed that a trade union could not be sued for breach of contract. He could see no reason why a contract should not be entered into by a union through its agent, but under this provision, if a union entered into a contract with anybody and broke it, the other party to the contract would have no remedy against the union. The Amendment went a step further. If a union, through its agents, threatened an act of trespass or violence or other wrong, no Court was allowed to grant an injunction to prevent that wrong being committed. The result of the Amendment would be to free a union from all the consequences of a wrong or breach of contract, and from the possibility of being restrained if they had committed, or contemplated committing, a wrong. Personally, he agreed

1755
with much that had been said about the good work that unions had done, but it was wholly impossible for him, or any one who thought with him, to agree to the present proposition. It was an innovation in our laws and a grave injustice, not only to employers, but to all persons who had dealings with unions or suffered from wrong committed by them, and he could not conceive that this Committee would agree to extend the clause in such a manner as was now proposed.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsuggested that it would be convenient to the House if they disposed of the question as to the recovery of damages, which raised the question of injunction, before they came to the question of dealing with tortious acts. The Amendment in his name had simply to do with the recovery of damages.
THE CHAIRMANsaid he had put the Question in the ordinary way, but if something else was wanted the right hon. Baronet might withdraw his Amendment.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid that what his right hon. friend wished to ascertain, and as to which they had not yet had a sufficient and satisfactory answer, was this: Supposing a trade union committed by its agents a wrongful act, such as paying money in support of a strike, or for picketing, or taking steps to induce men not to enter into the service of an employer, would it be possible for the employer to apply to the Court for an injunction to restrain the union from paying strike pay or for picketing or taking other similar action? Upon that they had no assurance from the Attorney-General. He thought he need hardly point out that the consequences of an injunction of that character might be far more disastrous to a trade union and its policy than an action to recover damages. With regard to the stopping of strike pay he thought hon. Members would agree with him that it would probably be a somewhat difficult operation. Undoubtedly in several actions which had been brought
1756
against trade unions one of the claims had been for an injunction to restrain the payment of strike pay. In a recent case in which he was concerned the Court-indicated that it would be very difficult, although under certain circumstances it might be possible, to issue an injunction to restrain strike pay. But no decision had ever been given restraining the payment of strike pay. It would probably be desirable that his right hon. friend should not press this Amendment. Perhaps it would be best to leave the matter until the Report stage to enable the Attorney-General to see whether any change could be made.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsaid he was not quite certain what course was going to be adopted, but as his proposal on the Paper was also involved in this Amendment he would like to detain the Committee for a few minutes. There had been a genuine attempt made to meet the demand made by organised labour, but by putting in this qualification and limitation the Attorney-General was falling a long way short of what it was understood the Government were pledged to do. They understood the Government to be pledged to place the unions in the position which they were understood to occupy prior to the decision in the Taff Vale case, and he respectfully suggested to the Attorney-General in this connection that he had entirely missed the point for which they had been contending. The whole question was whether a union as such was or was not a suable entity. Up to the time of Mr. Justice Farwell's decision a trade union was in precisely the position of any voluntary association that they could neither proceed by injunction nor bring an action for the recovery of damages. They were now altering so much of the Taff Vale decision as related to the recovery of damages and putting into the hands of employers, a weapon which, when fully utilised, would be found to be ten times more dangerous to the trade unions of this country than any action for the recovery of damages could be. It had not been suggested that an action for an injunction to restrain the trustees of a union at the instance of that union should be prohibited. That came within the ordinary rule of breach of trust, and could be

1757
restrained in the ordinary way. No one suggested that they should prohibit an injunction against individuals, whether they were secretaries of trade unions or pickets, or whatever they were, who committed wrongful acts. What trade unionists did urge was that all actions against the corpus of trade unions as such should be prohibited. An injunction might be issued against the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants for certain acts in South Wales. It issued against the organisation, which had ramifications throughout the United Kingdom. By the terms of the injunction, every branch, and the officials of every branch, of a society would be restrained from doing certain acts of which those persons might not have the slightest knowledge, and then when it was found that they had committed breaches of the injunction the union would be in the position of having committed a contempt of Court. He respectfully suggested to the learned Attorney-General that everything he wanted to do was done by leaving the injunction against individuals who were wrong doers, and that he should not make the Bill provide for the injunction to issue at large against trade unions. He need not weary the Committee by going into particulars, but there were conceivable circumstances — cases had come under his own notice —where an employer would get an injunction at the very threshold of a strike by alleging all sorts of things against the society. The injunction would prohibit the society from paying strike pay as being a means of inducing and procuring an unlawful act. In that way at the very threshold a strike might be crushed. He hoped that for the sake of the reputation of the Liberal Party, and for the sake of this Liberal Government, the Amendment would be accepted in so far as it allowed the prohibition of actions for injunctions against societies. If that was not done now there would be action after action in the law Courts showing how disastrous the rejection of this Amendment had been, and when the General Election took place, perhaps five years hence, it would be in the mouth of the working classes to show how they trusted the Liberals, and they would
1758
have the working classes doing with the Liberals of that time as they had done with the Tories.
MR. LYTTELTONassumed, as no answer had been made to the speech just delivered, that the Government adhered to their clause. Was that correct? The Government should inform the Committee what decision they were going to take on this very important point. Was it going to be another surrender? If it was he trusted that hon. Members would now once and for all make up their minds as to the validity of the decisions the Government had given, and the pretensions they had made in regard to this subject. They had said, and though they (the Opposition) voted against it they understood it perfectly well, that they wished to keep the funds of the trade unions immune in respect of the unauthorised acts of agents over whom the unions had not sufficient control. The Government did not wish to sanction illegality but only to preserve the union funds. But if this Amendment was accepted it would be in the power of any member of a union not merely to commit violence and fraud, or to conspire to do violence or to defraud, but to continue to do so not with standing that everybody knew what he was doing. The Courts would be powerless to restrain him. He would earnestly appeal to the Labour Members as to whether they wished at the very outset of their power in this Parliament to actually authorise the doing of perpetual wrong, because, if this Amendment was passed, actions which were against every right principle, actions which every person of right feeling would condemn, might be continued and persisted in month after month and year after year. And His Majesty's Courts would be powerless to enforce any remedy.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: Against the union.
R. LYTTELTONOr against individuals. [" No."] The words of the clause were—
" An action against a trade union whether of workmen or masters, or against any members thereof, on behalf of themselves and all other members of the trade union "—

1759
He submitted that if the words which followed—
" For the recovery of damages in respect of any tortious act alleged to have been committed by or on behalf of the trade union "
were left out, all injunctions whether against a trade union or against its members would cease [" No."], and the consequence might be that actions of the nature which he had described might be persisted in for years.
*MR. RUFUS ISAACSthought there was some misconception in regard to the matter they were discussing. Might he point out to the right hon. and learned Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, that this clause did not give any immunity to any individual? The words he had read—
" Or against any members thereof on behalf of themselves and all other members of the trade union "—
were merely inserted for the purpose of getting rid of the representative character of the action, and were not intended to give, and did not give, any immunity to any individual for any unlawful act he might commit. The main purpose of the clause was to grant immunity to the union funds in respect of actions which might be brought against the union for damages for any tortious act committed by them. He understood it was the intention of the Committee, as expressed in the divisions that had taken place, that no such action should be brought. But he did not think the Committee, so far, had expressed any intention to grant immunity to a trade union in respect of any unlawful act it committed, apart from the recovery of damages from the funds of the union. Speaking for himself he hoped that the Government would not accept the Amendment, because it seemed to him that if they did, the result would be that the trade unions would be able to commit unlawful acts if they were so minded, and no Court would be able to restrain them, although they might have expressed their intention of committing such acts, and mean to carry this intention into effect. He did not for a moment believe that the representatives of the trade unions claimed any such immunity. For example, suppose a union avowed
1760
its intention of intimidating persons, was not the Court then entitled to say that it would restrain that? Was there anyone who would complain of the trade union being asked not to do such things? But what was more important was that it seemed to him that in the discussion they were leaving out of consideration entirely the first three clauses of the Bill. He would ask those interested in trade unions to remember that those acts which the unions were desirous of being able to commit, and in respect of which they were seeking to be free from the control of the law, were already dealt with in the first three clauses. The great evil which the unions had suffered from was the extension of the doctrine of conspiracy to acts in which the unions had been held to have taken a part. But they had already got rid of that by Clause 1. The acts specified in that clause would be no longer unlawful, so they did not require the protection that a trade union should not be restrained by injunction from doing any of those acts. The same thing applied to Clause 2, so long as picketing was done peaceably and reasonably no unlawful act was committed. But supposing a union desired to go outside that clause and to do something unlawful? Why should the Court not be allowed to restrain it? Again, the same observations would apply to Clause.3. Something had been said in reference to a trade union being restrained from granting strike pay. He did not know of any action in which an injunction had been granted to restrain a union from granting strike pay, except the Denaby case. That was a totally different case from the cases they were now dealing with. It was a case in which one member of a union sought to restrain other members from applying the funds of the union in a manner not sanctioned by the trusts of the union; in other words, he sought to restrain the union from committing a breach of trust. All that was decided there was that one member of a union could restrain the union from so using the funds as to commit a breach of trust. That was quite a different point from that they were now dealing with. No employer could bring such an action. In the Denaby case the employers had to

1761
seek out a man who was a member of the union, and they had to pay him the rather high wage of £4 a week to keep him during the period they were seeking this injunction for the use of his name. That showed quite plainly that so far as they were concerned the only way in which in their view they could restrain the union was by getting a member to raise the question of breach of trust as between one member and other members. In his opinion no Court would ever restrain a union from granting strike pay, unless the granting of such pay was against the union's own rules. In order to meet the exigencies which had been referred to in the course of the debate there was no necessity to have this provision. The only effect of the Amendment would be to grant that which no member would get up and say he desired: an immunity from any action of the Courts restraining trade unions from committing acts which were admittedly unlawful acts.
MR. SHACKLETONsaid the Labour Members could not go into the point as to whether the law at present said this or whether the Bill would bring about the other. That was a matter for their legal friends, and while it was being argued they sat there rather bewildered. But they could say in honest English what it was they wanted. As to the question of strike pay he quite accepted the position that the only person who could stop strike pay was a member of the union, and that if he could stop it, it was because it was a breach of the rules if the union, not because it was a breach of law. He took it that after the Denaby case, the second case, actions by employers to restrain the granting of strike pay were stopped.
MR. J. WARD: Except through a member.
MR. SHACKLETON: Except through a member. If the unions were open to that attack to-day under the present law and under this Bill they would have to meet it in their own way. Of course, they could not say that a member of a union had not the right to see that the rules for the protection of the funds were enforced. In regard to this clause
1762
covering the question of damages, they certainly did want to make it certain that their funds should not be liable. They were of opinion that the clause as it stood would relieve their funds from any liability to damages. It had not been shown to his satisfaction that there was any danger to their funds in the clause. As to the point whether a union should be liable to an injunction he was with his right hon. friend thus far, that he was anxious that the union as such should be exempt. Bat he was also with the Member for Reading. The members of a committee who persistently instructed men to do wrongful acts ought to have an injunction granted against them as individuals.
MR. J. WARD: Not as men?
MR. SHACKLETONsaid he wanted to deal fairly with this matter. He felt a certain amount of responsibility and he wanted to state a fair case to the public. In his own case as a secretary if his committee persistently said a wrongful act should be done, he could not accept the position that nobody could come and say, "You must stop it." But he did say the union as such—the members of the union— should not be liable for anything that arose from it. The individuals responsible for carrying on a dispute should not be allowed to do illegal acts; and if they did those illegal acts some Court ought to be allowed to say, "It is time you stopped this." In the event of an injunction being granted he wanted it to be secured that the members out on strike should not lose their strike pay. The Attorney-General had assured them the clause would not have that effect. He suggested that the matter should be not settled to-night. It was a very important matter and some of his hon. friends sitting near him differed from him on the matter, and if it was possible so to arrange the clause that the points enumerated were safely secured he was willing to support it. It would be unwise to force these particular words in or out just now, and if the Attorney-General could manage to leave the matter over until the Report stage they could consider the question in the meantime and have words put in which would secure the union funds so that strike pay

1763
was not stopped as the result of an injunction. Then he thought they would all agree on the matter.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he should be quite content to allow these words to be left over with the distinct understanding that they could raise the questor of injunction again on Report, and with a view to allowing the Government to look into the matter. He confessed he had not felt satisfied in the debate that the questions he asked had been really answered satisfactorily. The main question he asked was whether actions for injunctions could still be brought against unions. He understood the answer was yes. The other question was, "Is there any other action except an action of tort?" He would like a clear answer to that. With regard to injunctions he felt the private nuisance under the picketing clause was a matter which was likely to be raised and dealt with by injunction as it had been dealt with by injunction in the United States. It was a point which the Government ought to meet if they could.
MR. ASQUITHsaid he had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Clitheroe and there was not a word in it with which he did not agree. His belief was that the clause as it stood carried out every one of the objects which his right hon. friend rightly desired; but he was quite ready to give the assurance that the Government would give it further consideration before the Report stage, and if they found any modification or addition was needed they would bring up words.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he also agreed with the spirit of the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Clitheroe. He thought the hon. Member saw as clearly as any Member of the Committee that it would be grossly improper for the House to allow any body of men to go on committing a wrong and deprive the Courts of the country of the power of preventing that wrong being committed. The only caveat he put in was this— and he put it in entirely in the spirit of the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member
1764
for Clitheroe. He agreed with the learned Gentleman the Member for Reading in this: a committee of a trade union when endeavouring to do a wrong ought to be subject to the orders of the Court by which that wrongful act could be put an end to. But the Member for Clitheroe seemed to think that rule ought not to be extended to the union. If the union had no control then he quite agreed it was the actual responsible body that ought to be got at. There might be cases where the trade union was the really responsible body, and if one committee was dealt with by a Court of law another committee should be so dealt with. The principle laid down by the Member for Clitheroe ought to be accepted, but his interpretation ought not to be accepted without consideration. With his statement that the persons responsible should be made subject to the action of the Court he personally should be content; and he was quite sure the object which the Member for Clitheroe and he had in common would be fully attained if they confined themselves to the narrow limits of the formula which the Member for Clitheroe had himself suggested. Subject to that he believed the course he had proposed that they should put off the final decision of the point was well advised. He thought they were approaching an hour at which the Committee should report progress. It was a complicated problem they had to deal with, and the general comfort, convenience, and efficiency of the House ought to be considered. He could not help urging the Government and all interested in the measure to consider whether the course he suggested should not be followed. Everybody must feel that the speaking had been fairly divided between the two sides of the House and there had been nothing in the nature of undue delay. Very complicated questions had been got over at least as quickly as they ought to have been got over; and the House was much less fit now after sitting twelve hours to deal with these questions than it would be in happier circumstances.
MR. ASQUITHhoped the Committee would not leave their work unfinished. There were Amendments still on the Paper in the names of hon. Members on

1765
both sides of the House; but they were of such a nature as could be reasonably and easily disposed of.
MR. KEIR HARDIEasked whether the Government had any suggestion to make as to the amount of time to be devoted to the Report stage? If there was an understanding that a reasonable amount of time would be given on the Report stage the discussion to-night might be curtailed.
MR. ASQUITH: I have not the least hesitation in giving that assurance. Adequate time will be given.
*MR. BRACEsaid he did not quite appreciate the statement made by his hon. friend the Member for Clitheroe. Before committing himself he must see the undertaking in print, and therefore the Member for Clitheroe did not state the case for Labour Members like himself who at present did not feel they could say they were satisfied with the clause.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he did not understand that the hon. Member for Clitheroe had given any undertaking. He thought they would not do any good by discussing the matter further at the present time, and he appealed to his hon. friends to let it stand over in the way suggested. He asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD R. CECILmoved to report progress. The Committee had been sitting for close upon twelve hours, and apart from any question of getting the Bill through, they had sat long enough for a reasonable discussion of the Bill. This was a Bill of considerable difficulty. It raised questions of considerable interest requiring very close attention. Further there was a distinct Parliamentary pledge given that the Committee should not sit later than eleven o'clock that night. If that pledge was disregarded it would be impossible for the Opposition to pay the slightest attention to any pledge given by the Government in the future. They had a debate on the Guillotine Resolution of the Education Bill and the Chancellor of the
1766
Exchequer said in so many words that the only business to be taken before August 4, except the Education Bill, was Supply, one day for the Grantham impeachment, and one day for the Trade Disputes Bill. By any construction of his words that was all the Government asked them to do. It was in the faith of that pledge that the House passed the Guillotine Resolution. Then they came to the motion for the time of the House, made by the Prime Minister on the 30th July. In making his proposal the right hon. Gentleman gave a list of the Bills which he desired to be taken, and among them this Bill. Thereupon the Leader of the Opposition pointed out the extreme difficulty of taking this Bill in this session. He said it was a Bill of a very controversial character, and that it was ridiculous to ask the House to take a Bill of that kind after eleven o'clock at night. That was the whole burden of what his right hon. friend had said. He said it over and over again. He pointed out that it was in deference largely to the views of the Labour Members that the hour of eleven o'clock was fixed for the adjournment of the House and that it was utterly unreasonable to ask the House to take a Labour Bill after eleven o'clock at the fag-end of the session. What was the answer of the Prime Minister to that? It was not reported very fully, and the answer was not correct. He was present.
AN HON. MEMBER: You are wasting time.
LORD R. CECILsaid he would ask the hon. Gentleman for the ordinary courtesy of debate. The Prime Minister said—
"they did not propose to take more than the Committee stage of the Trade Disputes Bill at present, and their intention was to take that Bill between five and eleven o'clock on a Friday."
And as a matter of fact he went on to say that he would not ask the House to sit later than eleven o'clock. The Leader of the Opposition put the question to him again, and the Prime Minister said he did not propose to ask the Committee to stay later than eleven o'cock. That was perfectly clear and distinct. But it was not

1767
only his impression, it was the impression of the Patronage Secretary. Only the other day the hon. Member for Clitheroe asked the Patronage Secretary when they proposed to take this Bill again, and he said this—
" It is rather difficult to say. Of course, the Government are very anxious that the Committee stage shall be taken before the holidays. I shall put it down at twelve o'clock as the first Order next Friday, and we will take it up to eleven o'clock."
And he said—
'' We cannot take it beyond eleven o'clock, because the Prime Minister has given a pledge that we should not."
MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: I was very particular about what I said. Will the noble Lord read on?
LORD R. CECIL:—
" If we cannot finish it before eleven o'clock we shall have a good many hours on the Saturday, and we will put it down for that day. If we cannot get it on Saturday it will have to go over to the Autumn."
MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: Some objection was made to what I was remarking, and I said I was not quite sure whether the Prime Minister' pledge debarred us from going beyond eleven o'clock, but I looked into the matter, and found that the pledge did not debar us from going on.
LORD R. CECILsaid he was quite content with that statement of the Patronage Secretary, because it showed that his impression was the same as he believed the impression of everybody else, namely, that the Prime Minister's pledge did debar them from going on, and, as a matter of fact, the pledge that he had read to the House was perfectly distinct— that they should not go beyond eleven o'clock. Of course, it was perfectly open to the Party opposite to disregard that pledge. They were in a majority and they could do it. Let it be perfectly clear, however, that it was the deliberate disregarding of a solemn Parliamentary pledge. He put it as high as that, and he was perfectly confident of it himself, for he heard the pledge given and he had no doubt of it. He was going to make a speech on that occasion, as a matter of fact, but he was asked by one of the hon. Members
1768
sitting on the front Opposition Bench not to say anything because it was thought that the Prime Minister's pledge was satisfactory, and it was not necessary to press the matter any further. No case could possibly be stronger from a Parliamentary point of view, and if they disregarded it they would gain a temporary victory to-night, but they would find that the conduct of their business would not be so smooth in future. If they broke this pledge, it would be the cowardly act of a great majority tyrannising over a small minority. He said that deliberately because he believed it, and he was quite sure that every right hon. Member on the Treasury Bench believed it too. He said that such conduct as that was utterly discreditable to the House of Commons, and would be utterly discreditable to the Government.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMANsaid he would pass over the compliments of the noble Lord, and the feelings and intentions and rules of conduct which he was good enough to attribute to the Government. He thought when he had been longer in the House he would be a little less dogmatic in imputing evil intentions to other people. What he said on the 18th July was what the noble Lord had read out, that it was intended to take this Bill on a Friday between five and eleven o'clock. That was last Friday. It was taken between five and eleven o'clock, and that was what they thought would be required for it. Then he (Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman) went on to say—
"In that way, there will be time for the discussion of the really one point in the Bill which excites strong feeling."
That was their intention and idea. But it turned out that the noble Lord and others had a great deal to say upon the Bill, and they had had to have another Friday, and that Friday was not the subject of any announcement on the part of the Government. The Government, never had the intention of confining the discussion, but the intention they had was explicitly stated by him, and it

1769
was that this Bill should pass its Committee stage during this portion of the session. In order to do that, there being hardly any Amendments on the Paper which need occupy many minutes of time, the Government said that they ought to sit on to-night.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid there was no class of Parliamentary controversy which he disliked more than controversies as to the precise character of pledges, and as to how far those pledges had been kept or broken. He had had, he believed, a longer continuous experience, in fact, he knew he had had a longer continuous experience—[a laugh]—it was quite evident that some Members of the Committee were hardly in a condition to continue this debate. He had had a longer continuous experience of the responsibilities of leadership of this House than any man for a century, and he could assure the House that there was nothing more absolutely certain than this, that a Government that did not carry out in their full spirit, as well as in the letter, the engagements which it made about business, however it might succeed for the moment, was preparing for itself inevitable trouble in the future. The right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, the present Leader of the House, had, he thought, forgotten what occurred upon the first occasion when the question of taking this Bill after eleven was first alluded to. It was at the time when he came down to the House on a Friday morning, and proposed to suspend the eleven o'clock rule. There then arose, as was natural, a discussion upon the business which was to be taken after eleven, and he (Mr. Balfour) made a strong protest against taking this particular Bill after eleven o'clock. He would not read the speech which he made on the subject, but the whole point of that speech was that they were working on the pledge originally given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a single Friday should be given to the Trade Disputes Bill. There then was a proposal that that Bill should be taken on a certain Friday, and carried on without reference to the eleven o'clock rule. He protested against this, and he gave arguments which seemed to him then,
1770
and which seemed to him still, very powerful, to show that they ought not to continue this discussion after eleven, and it was in answer to a speech, of which that was the whole burden, and which was intended to plead with the Government and with the House against any such action, that the Prime Minister replied. He then said that —
" After all, the strong point in his objection "—
that was his (Mr. Balfour's) objection—
"To the proposal of the Government was the position given to the Trade Disputes Bill; But the Government did not intend to take more than the Committee stage of the Trade Disputes Bill before the House adjourned, and their intention was to take that on a Friday between 5 and 11—"
the point being that that was an answer to his appeal that the Trade Disputes Bill should not be taken after eleven. Because it was found that one day between the hours of five and eleven was not sufficient the Government came down and said that their pledge was at an end. He ventured to say that no man in the private transactions of life would ever put such an interpretation on a pledge. He was quite certain that if he had been responsible for any such refined interpretation when he was in the place of the right hon. Gentleman he would have been the first and the loudest in his reproaches. He personally raised no objection: so far as his own feelings were concerned he cared not whether they sat late to-night or whether they sat early to-morrow. But that the Government gave what everybody accustomed to Parliamentary practice would admit was a pledge and that they now proposed to depart from that pledge seemed to him to be absolutely clear. For his own part, if the Government were prepared, as he believed they were, to give them full time on the Report stage, he had no objection to the Committee stage being finished before they separated for the holidays, and he cared not whether it was done to-night or to-morrow. But that there was a pledge that their proceedings on this Bill should not go beyond eleven o'clock seemed to him absolutely clear. He had every confidence in the Prime Minister; he was quite sure that if he had time to look back on what passed and to recall all that passed he would agree that

1771
an undertaking of a really efficient and binding character was given, and that if any Member of the House chose to press it the Government had no choice but to defer this discussion till to-morrow morning.
MR. ASQUITHsaid his right hon. friend the Prime Minister undoubtedly said that it was not intended to begin the discussion of this Bill after eleven o'clock. But even that was not by way of pledge; it was merely a declaration of the intentions of the Government. What was the position the right hon. Gentleman opposite now took up? Apparently it was this: that when eleven o'clock struck last Friday night the Prime Minister and the Government were under a pledge not to resume the discussion of this Bill. What, in the name of common sense, had they been doing for the last twelve hours? According to the right hon. Gentleman's contention every minute they had been sitting there since they met at twelve o'clock had been a breach of an understanding. That was the reductio ad absurdum. At what moment to-night did they begin to violate their pledge?
R. A. J. BALFOUREleven o'clock.
R. ASQUITHsaid they had continued the discussion till quarter to twelve, the right hon. Gentleman himself taking part, with general acquiescence on both sides of the House. He (Mr. Balfour) himself said he would not make a Motion to terminate the debate and it was not until the noble Lord on the back benches got up that it was suddenly discovered that during the whole of the last twelve hours they had been guilty of a gross breach of a pledge. The Government did not in the least assent to that view. They had given no pledge of any sort or kind, except that the Committee stage of this Bill should be concluded before they adjourned for the holidays.
IR E. CARSONsaid he was not going to argue over again the question of the breaking of the pledge. They had their own view of that they knew it had been broken and they knew it had been broken because minorities had to suffer. It was only on a par with the systematic
1772
bullying they had been subjected to for some time. After all, it was a very poor victory for a majority of 300 or 400 to bully a very small minority. But apart altogether from the broken pledge—and they were getting rather accustomed to broken pledges—he would like to remind the Government of the amount of business which they had had to go through during the last three or four weeks. It was all very well for right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite to think that it was a very light matter; very few of them had been up till two o'clock in the morning. During the last three or four weeks—and he said it to the credit of the Government—there had been important Bills passed in this House, and sometimes debated, which no other Government would ever have thought of bringing on at the late hours this Government had done. They had done that work. What was the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He said the pledge only related to last Friday. And why were they to adjourn at eleven o'clock last Friday? Because working from twelve o'clock in the day till eleven o'clock at night was thought to be as much as the House could do with any kind of justice to the subject they had in hand. But what was the idea now? It was that after a week's work and after sitting up till two o'clock every night they were in a better condition to go on after 11 o'clock than they were on this night week. So far as many of them on that side who had been attending to this question the whole day—and with very great reason—were concerned, they had to admit that after sitting there seven hours beyond the usual time they were fairly exhausted. As the subject was a very technical one, many of them had had to take part in the debate a great number of times. He was sure the one person who would have the sympathy of everybody—he was the only Minister who had taken the least concern about this Bill—was the Attorney-General, who had undergone a tremendous amount of hardship all through this debate. For all these reasons, apart from any pledge, it was reducing the discussions of this House to an absolute farce, to say that with a House worn out as this was after a twelve hours sitting they should go on pretending to discuss matters of the

1773
most vital importance in regard to a Bill which, on the admission of everybody, was introducing absolutely new principles into the law of the country. He dared say the Government would not yield to that argument any more than to the other arguments that had been put forward, but would prefer to rest their victory and their reputation on bullying the Opposition and on breaking their pledges.
MR. PAULearnestly hoped that the Government would not consent to the suspension of these proceedings until they had passed this stage of the Bill. There had been thirty Conservative

AYES.

Ashley, W. W.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey

Parkes, Ebenezer

Balcarres, Lord

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

Craik, Sir Henry

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Forster, Henry William

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hamilton, Marquess of

Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hills, J. W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES —

Cave, George

Keswick, William

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

and Viscount Valentia.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Morpeth, Viscount

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Bryce, J.A.(Inverness Burghs)

Duckworth, James

Agnew, George William

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Alden, Percy

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Elibank, Master of

Astbury, John Meir

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Essex, R. W.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Byles, William Pollard

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Everett, R. Lacey

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Fenwick, Charles

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Ferens, T. R.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Channing, Francis Allston

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Barnard, E. B.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Beale, W. P.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Clancy, John Joseph

Fuller, John Michael F.

Bell, Richard

Clarke, C. Goddard

Gill, A. H.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cleland, J. W.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Benin, Sir J. Williams (Devonpo'rt)

Clough, W.

Glover, Thomas

Benn, W.(T'w'r' Hamlets, S. Geo.)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Berridge, T. H. D.

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Cooper, G. J.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Billson, Alfred

Corbett, C.H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

Cowan, W. H.

Hall, Frederick

Brace, William

Cox, Harold

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Brigg, John

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Cremer, William Randal

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Brodie, H. C.

Crooks, William

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Brooke, Stopford

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Brunnor, J. F. L.(Laucs., Leigh)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen)

Dickinson, W. H.(St. Pancras, N.)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Members present during the day, and it was a perfect farce that they should dictate to the 200 or 300 gentlemen who had come down to do their duty to their constituencies and to the country.
MR. PORSTERreminded the hon. Member that it was only the presence of the thirty Conservative Members for whom he had such a profound contempt that saved his Government from defeat.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 31; Noes, 243. (Division List No. 318.)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Marnham, F. J.

Seddon, J.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Seely, Major J. B.

Hazleton, Richard

Massie, J.

Shackleton, David James

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Masterman, C. P. G.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)

Menzies, Walter

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Henry, Charles S.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Simon, John Allsebrook

Higham, John Sharp

Montagu, E. S.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Hodge, John

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Morrell, Philip

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S)

Horniman, Emslie John

Murphy, John

Snowden, P.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Newnes, F.(Notts, Bassetlaw)

Steadman, W. C.

Hudson, Walter

Nicholls, George

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Hyde, Clarendon

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncaster)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Nolan, Joseph

Strachey, Sir Edward

Isaacs, Rnfus Daniel

Norman, Henry

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Jackson, R. S.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Jardine, Sir J.

O' Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

Sullivan, Donal

Jenkins, J.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Summerbell, T.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

O'Grady, J.

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Thomasson, Franklin

Jowett, F. W.

O'Malley, William

Thompson, J. W.H (Somerset, E.)

Kekewich, Sir George

Parker, James (Halifax)

Thorne, William

Kelley, George D.

Paul, Herbert

Toulmin, George

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Paulton, James Mellor

Ure, Alexander

Laidlaw, Robert

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Verney, F. W.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Pearson, Sir W. D.(Colchester)

Vivian, Henry

Lambert, George

Power, Patrick Joseph

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Lamont, Norman

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Walsh, Stephen

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Walters, John Tudor

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hen. David

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Lough, Thomas

Rees, J. D.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Lupton, Arnold

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

Weir, James Galloway

Lynch, H. B.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Macdonald. J. R. (Leicester)

Richardson, A.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

Rickett, J. Compton

Whitehead, Rowland

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Maclean, Donald

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wiles, Thomas

Macpherson, J. T.

Robertson Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

Wilkie, Alexander

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Robinson, S.

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

M'Callum, John M.

Robson, Sir William Snowden

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Rowlands, J.

Maddison, Frederick

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Mallet, Charles E.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Peace.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Seaverns, J. H.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As in my opinion the Prime Minister has broken a deliberate pledge, I shall take no further part in these proceedings myself, and I advise my friends to follow my example.
[The right hon. Gentleman then left the chamber, followed by most of the Unionist Members.]
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSmoved to omit from the proposed new clause the words—
" Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the liability of the trustees of such union to be sued in the events provided for by the Trades Union Act, 1871, Section 9."
1776
In his belief the insertion of that proviso almost entirely nullified the effect of the former part of the section; in other words, he believed from a careful study of the section, and the decisions given upon it, that the action which, by the first part of the section was prohibited against the trade unions, might come in with all its effects against the trustees under that provise. He was quite sure that the Attorney-General could not have intended it to be so. He was not raising this without very grave consideration, and, quite frankly, he believed that if this were carried there was a very great risk of undoing the

1777
whole intention of the previous part of the clause. Section 9 of the Act of 1871 provided, that—
"the trustees of any trade union registered under this Act, or any other officers of such trade union who may be authorised so to do by the rules thereof, are hereby empowered to bring or defend, or cause to be brought or defended, any action or complaint in any court of law or equity touching or concerning the property rights or claim to property of the trade union."
To some extent, the Taff Vale case was got out of that section, but only to a slight extent. But there was a case which had been decided, where it had been held—and here was the importance of the point—that they might sue the trustees under that section for damages for tort and the plaintiff might then stand in the shoes of the trustees and get the damages out of the funds of the union. And if that were so, and his interpretation was right, then it followed that the effect of this clause was to say, in the first part, that they could not sue the union Tweedledum, but they had better get at the union Tweedledee. This was a case of libel where the trustees of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants were sued as owners of a paper, the organ of the union. His hon. and learned friend the Member for Reading argued in the case, and he set up as a method of defence that in this particular case they could not get at the funds of the union beyond the trustees, for the reason that this was a tort and was not such an action touching property as was contemplated by Section 9 of the Act of 1871. Mr. Justice Mathew, who gave judgment, overruled the point of view put by his hon. and learned friend the Member for Reading, and he said:—
"In my opinion, property under Section 9 of the Act of 1871 means property generally, and an action, attacking the assets of the society— for example, an action brought for breach of contract entered into on behalf of the society —would be an action touching or concerning the property of the trade union."
So the action which threatened the assets of the society, by a claim for damages, as
1778
in this case, would be an action that touched and concerned the property of the society. Every action, that was to say, brought hitherto against the trade union had been an action which threatened to diminish the assets of the society, and if this proviso went in saying that the first part of the section should do nothing to affect the liability of the trustees under Section 9 of the Act of 1871, and they still left standing that decision, given expressly upon Section 9 of the Act of 1871, this clause, without it intending to be so, would turn out to be a hollow pretence and a sham, and in a year or eighteen months time they would be in the position of having the Courts of law able to drive a coach and four through it. He would ask the Attorney-General to consider this. He might perhaps see his way clear to say that words should be introduced so as to meet the particular points which he had raised—so as to meet the possibility that under Section 9 of the Act of 1871 they could still have an action for tort arising out of a trade dispute. If he could not see his way clear, he regarded the matter of such imperative importance from the point of view of their pledges in the country, and from the point of view of labour that he would have to press his Amendment to a division.
Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause—
"In line 5, to leave out from the word 'court' to end of clause."—(Mr. Clement Edwards.)
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he was sorry at the concluding observation of the hon. and learned Member's speech because his fears were purely imaginary, and his views with regard to the clause and its interpretation were absolutely unfounded. He had always assumed

1779
that his hon. and learned friend advocated the status quo, and yet he wished to strike out of his clause words which he thought were essential to the maintenance of the status quo. The clause provided that no action should be brought against a trade union. It was possible that some ingenious tribunal might say that by that provision they entirely repealed Section 9 of the Act of 1871. No one wanted to repeal Section 9 of the Act of 1871. His hon. and learned friend did not wish it.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS: No.
*SIR JOHN WALTONsaid that hon. Members opposite certainly did not wish to repeal it. The Government wished to leave that Act in full force. And therefore under this clause, while no action of tort could be brought against a trade union, nothing that exempted that trade union from liability of that sort would interfere with the operation of the Act of 1871, Section 9. It had reference to a very limited class of cases indeed which were brought not against the trades union, but against the trustees of the trade union. If hon. Members would allow him to refer to what these sections were, he thought they would agree that there was no trade union which sought to be free from that sort of liability, and it was only that sort of liability which was preserved by the last clause of this Bill. Section 9 said that the trustees of a trade union registered under this Act, who might be authorised to do so by the rules, were empowered to bring actions or to defend actions, or cause actions to be brought or to be defended, in any Court of law or equity, touching or concerning the property, right, or claim to property of the trade union, and should, in all cases concerning the property of such trade unions, sue and be sued. They might bring the action, and they might
1780
be subject to actions which touched or concerned their property. They might plead in any Court of law or equity in their proper names; that was to say, in the names of the trustees. They might be sued if their property was the means of inflicting an injury upon others. That was a provision of the Act of Parliament which was put into operation, and which it was not proposed to repeal, and which was framed with regard to the status quo which he understood his hon. and learned friend was anxious to preserve. And the only conceivable object of putting it in was to prevent the status quo being disturbed by a side-wind, and by an operation of the clause that it was not intended to have at all. As to the case of Linacre v. Pilcher, there a newspaper was established by a trade union out of its own funds, and was a part of its own property. It was just as much a part of its own property as its own premises and offices might be, or as any store which it might establish might be. There was nothing whatever in this section which said that the decision of Linaker v. Pilcher should be law. All that the section said was that the Act of Parliament should be law, and while the Act of Parliament remained law they were fulfilling their pledge by maintaining the status quo.
MR. J. WARDsaid that he was only a layman, but he understood that clauses in Acts of Parliament were generally decided by what followed. The last words of this clause if it remained as suggested would be—
" Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the liability of the trustees of such union, to be sued in the events provided for by the Trades Union Act, 1871, Section 9."
He gathered from the Attorney-General that if these words were left out Section 9 of the Act of 1871 would still remain. In these circumstances he did not think that the words proposed to be left out should remain, because they limited, or

1781
seemed to limit, the previous provisions of the clause. He was very much afraid that if they remained they might be used to get at the funds of the trade unions in some way or other. He was not satisfied at all with the previous decision of the Committee in regard to this clause. He did not think trade unions would submit in any circumstances to having their committees, as committees, liable to injunctions or to actions of any description.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not go back on previous Amendments.
MR. J. WARDhoped, in the circumstances, the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh would persist in his Amendment.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that on this occasion he would certainly advise his hon. friends to vote with the Government. He rejoiced to see that even at this late period the Attorney-General had assented to the views which he and those of his friends who sat around him had attempted to press on the Government. He was glad to see the Secretary for War present, because he would be able to rejoice with him. The right hon. Gentleman and himself perfectly agreed on this point; probably, as the House was constituted at that moment, they were the only two Members who would be found in the same lobby. He said that because he saw the right hon. Gentleman was reported to have said—
" Mr. Keir Hardie had written to the newspapers threatening Mr. Asquith and himself with all sorts of retribution if they would not toe the mark by voting for the particular proposals which Mr. Keir Hardie wished to carry out. Well, he was sure that neither he nor Mr. Asquith would budge one inch because of Mr. Keir Hardie's remarks."
He saw there was some dissent at the claim he had made that the right hon.
1782
Gentleman and himself were agreed on this point. But he begged to repeat the observation that the decision of the Government to incorporate in their Bill Section 9 of the earlier Act lent the strongest colour to the view that the contention supported by the Secretary for War and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in the last resort carried the day in this highly controversial question. When the case was put to the Attorney-General, a case which had been decided in a Court of first instance, of successful proceedings involving the payment of damages being taken against a trade union for libel, what was his answer? He made two answers, one the fit complement of the other. In the first place he said the trade union had property, and that being so there was no inherent unreasonableness in making that property liable—a most powerful ally of the proposition he (Mr. Smith) had contended for ever since this Bill came before the House. It was the contention that had been made on those benches again and again, that when they had the element of property they should make that property liable. But the Attorney-General's ingenuity was not exhausted by that answer. In order to comfort hon. Gentlemen below the gangway who might have begun to doubt as to the value of the concessions they were deriving from this Bill, he gave a second answer. After all, he said, Linaker v. Pilcher, though it was a reported case, Was only a decision of a Court of first instance. He complimented hon. Gentlemen below the gangway on the litigious prospects opened out to them by the Attorney-General. The judge who tried that case was a judge who in commercial experience and in knowledge of trade disputes was inferior to no lawyer on the bench, and speaking for himself he desired to thank the Government for the valuable concession which they had given even at

1783
the last hour to the cause he had been vainly endeavouring to press upon them, and for having established the proposition that when a trade union had property, had funds, and employed those funds in violating the common law rights of other citizens, those funds should be liable.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the Government had made no concession, and the hon. and learned Member's speech was highly inflammatory and imaginary. There was no difference of principle in regard to this clause. He was anxious to avoid the smallest danger that the area of liability of Section 9 of the Act of 1871 should be enlarged, and therefore he would suggest to his hon. and learned friend who proposed this Amendment that possibly if the words of the clause were modified in this way his point would be met—
" Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of the Trades Union Act, 1871."
That was a simple indication that they did not wish to repeal that Act. If he thought that these words would not meet the point then he would be glad to consider it further between now and the Report stage.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I should be glad to accept the words, but, frankly, I do not think they change the position.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (SIR W. ROBSON, South Shields)thought the hon. and learned Member opposite entirely misconceived the decision in Linaker v. Pilcher. He was in that case with his hon. and learned friend behind him, and he did not suppose that any trade unionist would desire to reverse the decision. It was a case entirely outside a trade dispute. The union entered into the business of
1784
newspaper proprietor just as it might have entered into the business of keeping a grocer's shop, and having enter ed into that business it assumed all the liabilities attaching to it. If it chose to make libellous observations, then like other newspaper proprietors it had to stand the consequences. But the case Was altogether outside the scope of a trade dispute. It was a case of a trade union taking up another pursuit and assuming both the advantages and disadvantages of that pursuit in common with all other people.
MR. F. E. SMITH: I would ask the Solicitor-General whether he suggests that the libel was not published in the course of a trade dispute.
SIR W. ROBSON: It was not:
*MR. RUPUS ISAACSsaid he could answer that question. It certainly was not a case of a trade dispute. In addition to what had already been stated in regard to that case, his recollection was pretty clear that those who were responsible for the trade union were distinctly of opinion that having been proved to be wrong on the facts stated at the trial, and having been cast in damages, the case should not be carried any further. It was exactly the same position as if a trade union had been suing or had been sued for breach of contract in respect of property which it owned; for example, as if a union renting a house had been sued by the landlord for rent. Linaker v. Pilcher decided nothing more nor less than that the trustees were liable for a wrong done arising out of the publication of a newspaper owned by the union in the names of trustees, and one of the points at issue was whether the trustees were entitled to an indemnity from the union funds as they had been carrying on the business in the name of the union.
MR. CLEMENT EDWAEDSsaid he did not differ one bit from the view put by the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General as to the point at issue in that particular case. But the danger of the whole position was in the ground on which the judge based his decision, and when one remembered that that judge probably more than any other judge had taken a friendly attitude towards trade unions, he solemnly warned the Committee of the great danger involved in accepting this proviso.
MR. JOHN WARD, after the explanations and the promise of the Attorney-General to reconsider the subject in view of the discussion that had taken place, appealed to the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh to withdraw the Amendment.
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS, on the understanding that further consideration would be given to the matter before the Report stage, asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
New clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill."
Motion made, and Question "That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill" put, and negatived.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday, 23rd October, and to be printed. [Bill 342.]

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow at Ten of the Clock.
MUSICAL COPYRIGHT BILL.
Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.

CENSUS OF PRODUCTION (EXPENSES).
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Re solved, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any expenses incurred for the purpose of the Census under any Act of the present Session to provide for taking a Census of Production."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Consideration of Lords' Amendments.
MR. BRYCEmoved, "That the House do agree with the Lords in the following Amendment—
"In Clause 11, 'provided that, where the Court is satisfied in any particular case that, owing to the difficulty of showing title, the costs properly or necessarily incurred in respect of such payment amounted to a larger sum, the limit of £10 may be exceeded.' "
MR. SPEAKERsaid he had to acquaint the House that this Amendment was, or might still be, an infringement of the rights of the Commons. Of course, the possibility of an increase of rate, which might be caused by such order of the Court, was remote, but still it was a possibility, and in that respect it might be that an extra charge might have to be incurred. And therefore, as he had said, the Amendment was still, in his opinion, in an almost infinitesimal degree, but still in some degree, an infringement of the Commons' rights.
MR. BRYCEthought that, although it was late, the importance of disposing of this Bill, which must be disposed of to-night if it was to pass into law to-morrow, and which was awaited with the greatest anxiety and impatience in Ireland, justified them, in taking the matter now, and he would state the position in the fewest possible words. This House had disagreed with some of the Amendments made by the Lords. The first of those Amendments the Lords had abandoned and not insisted upon, or had agreed to the Commons' Amendment. The second raised an important question of privilege, and upon that the Lords had not insisted. The third Amendment now before the House was one upon which they disagreed with the Lords upon the question of privilege. The Lords had also not insisted upon that Amendment, but had substituted for it another Amendment, which was now before them. That Amendment, as Mr. Speaker had told the House, might possibly, to an infinitesimal degree, be an infringement of the privileges of the House to this extent, that it might possibly in certain cases impose a charge upon the rates. That, however, would be to a very small extent, and this Amendment did not cover any decision at which the House had arrived, as the former Amendment did. It only contemplated a certain class of cases, in which it was possible that there might arise some hardship to individuals. The Amendment itself therefore, on its merits, was not unreasonable, and he believed that it would remove a certain amount of not unnatural irritation in certain quarters. Of course, they all knew how important and valuable to them were the privileges of the House. They had been the very foundation of the power and strength of the House, and he thought they ought on every occasion to be jealously guarded. At the same time the House had never been dogmatic on the subject, and where it could
1788
be shown that its rights were fully vindicated, and where it was shown that an Amendment might be adopted without prejudice to those rights, it had never hesitated to waive its privilege, having asserted it. And therefore no harm was done to its rights, while at the same time the object of putting the Bill into a proper shape was in point of fact attained. That was the course which the Government thought the House might properly follow on this occasion. The Amendment itself was one which might perfectly well be accepted, and one which might be represented as an improvement of the Bill. They had asserted their rights, and their rights were admitted in this case from the fact that the Lords had substituted another Amendment which was to a vary much, smaller degree subject to the objection before taken; and under these circumstances he thought the case was one in which the House might properly waive its privilege and accept the Lords Amendment.
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

LUNATICS.
Order [this day] for a Return relative thereto read, and discharged.— (Mr. Claude Hay.)

MARRIAGE WITH FOREIGNERS BILL.
Lords' Amendments to be considered, forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
Whereupon Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th July last.
Adjourned at twelve minutes after One o'clock a.m.