TRADE DISPUTES BILL.

HC Deb 03 August 1906 vol 162 cc1607-785

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

Clause 2:—

*MR. FELL (Great Yarmouth)

moved 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 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,) Leeds, S.

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. CARSON (Dublin University)

said 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. CARSON

said 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. CARSON

slid 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. WALTERS (Sheffield, Brightside)

said 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 (City of London)

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. BANBURY

agreed 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. BOWLES (Lambeth, Norwood)

moved 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 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 WALTON

said 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 VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)

complained 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. BANBURY

said 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 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 POWELL (Wigan)

reminded 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. SMITH (Liverpool, Walton)

moved 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 WALTON

said 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. HILLS (Durham)

said 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. HILLS

thought 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. CARSON

did 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 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. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)

did 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 CHAIRMAN

suggested that the substance of the decision appeared to cover the Amendment of the hon. Member for Norwood, which appeared next upon the Paper.

MR. BOWLES

inquired whether the Chairman said that his Amendment to insert after the word "union" the words "or of an employer" was out of order.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said 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 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. BOWLES

then 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 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 WALTON

said 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. SMITH

thought 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 WALTON

said 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. SMITH

said the hon. and learned Gentleman stated that the Bill 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. SMITH

said 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 WALTON

was 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. CECIL

said 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. CECIL

said 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. 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. CARSON

said 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. HILLS

asked 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 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 WALTON

said 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 WALTON

rose 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 WALTON

claimed "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. DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)

said 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 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. 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 WALTON

said 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 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-JONES

regretted 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 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. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, Clitheroe)

said 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 POWELL

said 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 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. CARSON

said 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. PARKES (Birmingham, Central)

thought 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 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 DILKE

said 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 HARDIE

pointed 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 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 WALTON

said 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 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,) Lanarkshire, Mid.

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 DILKE

said 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. BOWLES

moved 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- 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 WALTON

said 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. CECIL

hoped 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. BOWLES

said he appreciated the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

moved 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 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 WALTON

said 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. CECIL

said 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 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. VERNEY (Buckinghamshire, N.)

said 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. CARSON

said 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 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 BANBURY

called 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 CHAIRMAN

said the words under discussion had nothing to do with the owners of lodging-houses.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

said 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 WALTON

said 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 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 BANBURY

asked 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 WALTON

said 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. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)

said 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. RAWLINSON

said 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 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 WALTON

said 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. CARSON

said 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.

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 WALTON

claimed, "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.

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 DILKE

moved 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 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 WALTON

said 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 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. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, N.E., Clitheroe)

said 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 DILKE

drew 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 WALTON

said 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-JONES

differed 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. WARD (Stoke - on - Trent)

gathered 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 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 HARDIE

desired 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 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 (Yorkshire, W.R., Pudsey)

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 SALTER (Hants, Basingstoke)

had 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 CHAIRMAN

said 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 SALTER

accordingly 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 WALTON

said 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. CARSON

said 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 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 WALTON

claimed, "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.

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. BOWLES

moved 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 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 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. BOWLES

contended 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 WALTON

said 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 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 CARSON

said 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. BOWLES

said 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 SALTER

said 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 WALTON

said 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 SALTER

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD R. CECIL

moved 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 WALTON

said he could not see how it could be actionable as a tort under this clause. He could not accept the Amendment.

LORD R. CECIL

said he did not desire to press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

said he did not know whether the Attorney-General was inclined to accept the Amendment of which he had given notice, to insert after 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 DILKE

said 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. CECIL

said 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. CECIL

said 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 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. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)

said 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. LYTTELTON (St. George's, Hanover Square)

said 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 ISAACS (Reading)

thought 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 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 ISAACS

said he quite agreed. They would not do it, and 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 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. CARSON

said 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. SHACKLETON

said 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 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 state the true facts. He thought they were entitled to exemption in regard to an action such as that.

*SIR JOHN WALTON

said 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. HILLS

did 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 BANBURY

moved 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, 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. BALFOUR (City of London)

said 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 WALTON

said the cases which had been described by the hon. 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. BALFOUR

said 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-JONES

thought that this was an important and debatable Amendment, and agreed with much that had been said by the Opposition. To 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 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. CECIL

wished 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 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. CECIL

said 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. MARKHAM (Nottinghamshire, Mansfield)

said he would like to ask the hon. and learned Attorney-General 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 WALTON

said 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 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

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. CECIL

moved 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 WALTON

did not think the words which the noble Lord 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 DILKE

said 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. RAWLINSON

said 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. 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. CECIL

said 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 WALTON

said the object of these words was simply to make it clear what the nature of the interference was.

LORD R. CECIL

asked 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 BANBUEY

proposed 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 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 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. Member, and he corrected himself immediately on attention being drawn to it.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY

said 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. CARSON

said 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 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. NIELD (Middlesex, Ealing)

said 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

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 WALTON

moved 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. BALFOUR

said 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 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,) Fife, E.

Quite true.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

continuing, 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 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 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 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 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. ASQUITH

said 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 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 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 PEASE (Darlington)

said 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 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 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. SMITH (Liverpool, Walton)

said 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 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 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 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 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. HILLS (Durham)

said 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 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-CHAIRMAN

said 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. HILLS

understood 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-CHAIRMAN

said 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. HILLS

said 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 (Stoke-on-Trent)

Should I be in order in moving that the Question be now put?

*MR. HILLS

said the principle raised by this clause could only be dealt with by showing the machinery of the clause.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

said this was not a difference between the two forms.

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

said the question of injunction was not a matter raised by the clause as amended.

*MR. HILLS

said 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 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. HILLS

said 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. (Nottinghamshire, Mansfield)

I beg to move that the Question be now put.

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

did not accept the Motion

*MR. BOWLES

said 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-CHAIRMAN

did not accept the Motion.

*MR. BOWLES

said 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. BOWLES

said 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 (Yorkshire, W.R., Skipton)

I beg to move that the Question be now put.

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

did 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 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 (Kirkcaldy Burghs)

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. CECIL

said 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

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. CARSON

asked 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 WALTON

quite 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 WALTON

in 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 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 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 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 WALTON

replied 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 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 CHAIRMAN

said 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. CARSON

did 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 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 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 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 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 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. SIMON (Essex, Walthamstow)

said 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 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. SIMON

said 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 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 SALTER (Hants, Basingstoke)

said 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 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. PAUL (Northampton)

said 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 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 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 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 PARKER (Gravesend)

said 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 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 EDWARDS (Denbigh District)

said that was precisely what was done in a South Wales case.

SIR GILBERT PARKER

said 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 RICKETT (Yorkshire, W.U., Osgoldcross)

said 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

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 EDWARDS

moved, 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. CARSON

asked what was the effect of the Amendment?

*SIR JOHN WALTON

said 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. CECIL

asked whether this would include any branches which were not unions.

MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS

said 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. CECIL

thought 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 DILKE

moved 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 union as such, were prohibited. It was to remove that doubt he moved the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS

moved, 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. CARSON

said 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. CECIL

said 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 EDWARDS

said 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 WALTON

pointed 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 EDWARDS

assented.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

moved, 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 WALTON

said 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 WALTON

said 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. WARD

said 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 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. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)

said 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 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 EDWARDS

suggested 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 CHAIRMAN

said 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-JONES

said 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 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 EDWARDS

said 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 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 have the working classes doing with the Liberals of that time as they had done with the Tories.

MR. LYTTELTON

assumed, 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. LYTTELTON

Or 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 "— 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 ISAACS

thought 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 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 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. SHACKLETON

said 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 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. SHACKLETON

said 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 was not stopped as the result of an injunction. Then he thought they would all agree on the matter.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

said 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. ASQUITH

said 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. BALFOUR

said 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 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. ASQUITH

hoped the Committee would not leave their work unfinished. There were Amendments still on the Paper in the names of hon. Members on both sides of the House; but they were of such a nature as could be reasonably and easily disposed of.

MR. KEIR HARDIE

asked 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. BRACE

said 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 DILKE

said 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. CECIL

moved 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 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. CECIL

said 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 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. CECIL

said 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 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-BANNEEMAN

said 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 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. BALFOUR

said 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, 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 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. ASQUITH

said 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. BALFOUR

Eleven o'clock.

R. ASQUITH

said 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. CARSON

said 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 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 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. PAUL

earnestly 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. PORSTER (Sevenoaks)

reminded 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 EDWARDS

moved 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. 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 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 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 WALTON

said 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 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 WALTON

said 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 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. WARD

said 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 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. WARD

hoped, in the circumstances, the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh would persist in his Amendment.

MR. F. E. SMITH

said 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. 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 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 WALTON

said 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 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 ISAACS

said 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 EDWAEDS

said 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.]