Commons Sitting of 27 July 1906

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Bacup Corporation Bill; Cork City Railways and Works Bill; Derby Gas Bill; Middlesex County Council (General Powers) Bill; St. John's (Westminster) Improvement Bill; Todmorden Corporation Bill; Tottenham and Edmonton Gas Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Folkestone, Sand gate, and Hythe Tramways Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Nettlebed and District Commons (Preservation) Bill [Lords]; Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [Lords] (by Order). Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Buckhaven, Methil, and Innerleven Burgh Extension Bill [Lords]. Ordered, That, in the case of the Buckhaven, Methil, and Innerleven Burgh Extension Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 82, 211, 236, and 237 be suspended, and that the Committee on the Bill have leave to sit and proceed on Monday next.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
London Squares and Enclosures Bill [Lords]. Ordered, That, in the case of the London Squares and Enclosures Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 82, 211, 236, and 237 be suspended, and that the Committee on the Bill have leave to sit and proceed on Monday next.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Local Government Provisional Order (Housing of Working Classes) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Newburgh and North Fife Railway (Extension of Time) Order Confirmation Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
Paisley Roads Order Confirmation Bill. Considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
Metropolitan Electric Supply Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bute (English and Welsh) Estates Bill [Lords]. Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill to be read the third time.
Great Yarmouth Waterworks and Lowestoft Water and Gas Bill [Lords]. Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP I).
Mr. TOULMIN reported from the Committee on Group I of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at Twelve of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; St. Pancras Electricity Bill; Hackney Electricity Bill; London County Council (Money) Bill; South Lincolnshire Water Bill; Hampstead Garden Suburb Bill; Poole Corporation Water Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—Prevention of Corruption Bill [Lords]: Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill. Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against; From Barrow on Trent; Kensworth: Lyonsdown; Upper Norwood; and, West Hallam; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; From City of London; Ennerdale (two); Holmebridge; Monyash; and, St. Erth; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES TAXATION, ETC., (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from St. Andrews, for alteration: to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT, 1890.
  Return [presented July 26th] to be printed. [No. 285.]
  POST OFFICE (INLAND POST).
  Copy presented, of the Inland Post Amendment (No. 4) Warrant, 1906, dated June 30th [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TELEGRAPHS (FOREIGN WRITTEN TELEGRAMS).
  Copy presented, of the Telegraph (Foreign Written Telegram) Regulations, 1906, dated July 16th, 1906 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SOUTH AFRICA.
  Copy presented, of Reports by the High Commissioner on his visits to Basutoland and the Bechuanaland Protectorate in 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3681 to 3683 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Report, Miscellaneous Series, No. 653 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered July 23rd;Sir Frederick Banbury]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 286.]

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Statement of Particulars of Loans of which the Balances outstanding are proposed to be remitted or written off (in whole or in part) from the Assets of the Local Loans Fund."— (Mr. McKenna.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 287.]

  CIVIL SERVANTS (RETIREMENT AT THE AGE OF SIXTY-FIVE)
  Copy ordered, "of Treasury Minute, dated the 26th day of July, 1906, stating the circumstances under which certain Civil Servants have been retained in the Service after they have attained the age of Sixty-five; and of the Return therein referred to."—(Mr. McKenna.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Admiralty Accountant-General's Department.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the late Government, shortly before their resignation, sanctioned a reorganisation of the Accountant-General's Department of the Admiralty, under which fifty-eight clerks who obtained their appointments by open competitive examination are displaced, and the appointment of 151 clerks without examination has become vested in the Accountant-General of the Navy; and, seeing that this form of patronage has been strongly condemned by successive Governments, and constitutes a contravention of the Order in Council of June, 1870, under which open competitive examination was laid down as the mode of access to the public service, will he consider the expediency of arranging for schemes of reorganisation of public departments to be laid upon the Table of the House before being put into effect, so that they may come under the scrutiny of Members especially when, as in the present case, they embody important alterations in the formation of the staff.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) I can add very little to the Answer given by my hon. friend the Secretary to the Admiralty on May 21st. The figures of my hon. friend are, I believe, substantially correct. The scheme of reorganisation does not, as I understand it, involve any contravention of the Order in Council, which expressly makes provision for such appointments. It would be contrary to precedent and impracticable to lay draft schemes of departmental organisation upon the Table of the House. Every opportunity, of course, is afforded
  62
  to Members for discussion on the Estimates.

  Telegraphists and Supervisory Duties in Central Telegraph Office, London.
  MR. J. BETHELL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a number of senior telegraphists in the London Central Office who have passed the necessary examination in practical and theoretical telegraphy for the post of assistant superintendent, and have been assisting for some time in the work of supervision, have now been removed from these duties and placed upon ordinary telegraph work, while officers junior to them who have not passed the technical examination have been placed on supervising duties; and if he will state the reason, for this action.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The facts are as stated. The object of the arrangement is merely to test the qualifications of the various officers so as to select more certainly those best qualified for promotion. The absence of superior officers on leave during the summer affords convenient opportunity for the application of such tests. No injustice is done to the seniors by giving their juniors occasional opportunities of proving their capacities. The claims and qualifications of all will be carefully considered when vacancies occur, and any officers who have not yet passed the technical examination will be required to do so before promotion.

  Glasgow Post Office—Medical Officers.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General if he has yet appointed the medical officers for the Glasgow post office; and, if so, to whom the appointments have been given.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have not yet made the appointments, but I hope to do so very shortly. The number of applicants is extremely large.

  English Contractor for Wicklow Harbour Improvements.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Wicklow Harbour Board recently invited tenders in connection with Wicklow.

  63
  Harbour and foreshore works; that notwithstanding the fact that the lowest tender came from the only Irish firm who competed for the work, the Commissioners decided to have the work done by an English firm at the higher price; and if he can explain why this work had to be executed outside Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Irish Government has no responsibility as regards the contract for the works referred to, the matter being entirely one for the Harbour Board. If the hon. Member desires information upon the subject he should seek it from the Harbour Commissioners.

  Vaccination Exemption Certificate—Case of Mr. Howard Farrow.
  MR. SEAVERNS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that on July 23rd Mr. Howard Farrow applied to Mr. Francis, at the Lambeth Police Court, for a certificate of exemption from vaccination for his child, and stated that he had a conscientious objection to vaccination, and the magistrate declined to grant such certificate; whether he is aware that Mr. Farrow had previously been fined at the same court for refusing to allow another child to be vaccinated; and what action the Home Secretary proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I am informed that Mr. Farrow stated that he conscientiously objected to vaccination, but refused to give the grounds upon which he founded his objection. The certificate was refused because the applicant failed to satisfy the magistrate, as required by the Act, that he conscientiously believed that vaccination would be prejudicial to the health of the child in question. As I have said in reply to previous Questions on the same subject, I have no authority to take action in the matter.

  Refusal of Camp Leave to Volunteers in Glasgow Post Office.
  MR: ARTHUR LEE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the postmaster of Glasgow refused leave on July 10th, for camp training, to six Volunteer signalmen of the Clyde Divi
  64
  sion, R.N.V.R.; and whether he is prepared to make good the loss of the efficiency grant to which the commanding officer of the division would have been entitled by the special training of these men.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The postmaster was obliged to refuse leave in the cases to which the hon. Member refers, because it could not be granted without detriment to the work of the office, which at this season of the year is very heavy. I cannot, accept any responsibility for the effect of their absence from camp on the grant earned by the division.

  Luncheon Accommodation for Postal Staff at Kingsbridge Station.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can now say what is the result of the communication which he made to the Great Southern and Western Railway Company with reference to luncheon accommodation for the staff employed at Kingsbridge station.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have now received a reply from the Great Southern and Western Railway Company which will make it possible for me to restore to the post office staff employed at Kingsbridge railway station the privileges in regard to luncheon accommodation which the company withdrew last year.

  Clerks to Surveyors of Taxes.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the Board of Inland Revenue consulted the chief inspector of taxes on the subject of the memorial of the surveyors of taxes last year, he will explain if the present chief inspector of taxes is opposed to the establishment of the surveyors' clerks; whether he is aware that the present chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue recommended a scheme of establishment to the Treasury in 1899; whether he will state why the Treasury would not sanction such scheme; and whether, seeing that the Inland Revenue officials are in favour of establishment of these clerks, and that such clerks would have been established in 1899 only for the Treasury officials objection, he will, under these circumstances, direct

  65
  an inquiry to be held at which the surveyors and their clerks could be represented.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I have already fully stated the reasons by which the Treasury were guided in their decision, for which they assume the whole responsibility; and, while I do not admit the accuracy of all the statements of the hon. Member, I consider it undesirable in the public interests that inter-departmental correspondence, which is of a confidential character, should be discussed by Question and Answer.

  Names of British Battleships—The Admiral Class.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty has been drawn to the absence of the name of Nelson and of his birth-county, Norfolk, from the names of ships in the Royal Navy; and whether he can see his way, now that the Admiral Class are to be removed from the list of fighting ships, to call a new class of battleships by the names of great admirals.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The Admiralty requires no reminders as to the desirability of keeping up the historical traditions of the Navy when new ships are named. A first-class battleship is to be launched on the Tyne early in September and to be christened the "Lord Nelson."

  Orange Disturbance at Keady, County Armagh.
  MR. McKILLOP: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on July 11th a body of Orangemen, with drums and revolvers, created a serious disturbance in the main street, Keady, county Armagh, by breaking windows, throwing stones, and firing numerous revolver shots without the slightest provocation; and whether, seeing that only two or three policemen were on duty in the locality at the time, he will see that proper steps will in future be taken to prevent a recurrence of such disorders.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the police authorities that the facts
  66
  are substantially as stated in the first part of the Question. An Orange drumming party appears to have suddenly invaded a Nationalist quarter, from which a shot was then fired. The drumming party retaliated by firing shots and throwing stones, four panes of glass being broken. A force of thirty extra police was in the town for duty in respect of the celebrations on the following day. Portion of this force was at once turned out, and the disturbance was quelled in a few minutes. A prosecution is pending against one man for throwing stones. The police were unable to detect those who fired shots on the occasion.

  Irish Tenders for Cast-off Clothing of Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the cast-off clothing, etc., belonging to the Royal Irish Constabulary force is annually sold to a London firm, and that no opportunity of tendering is given to Irish traders; and if he will consider the advisability of causing such goods to be sold by public competition.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The cast-off clothing of the Royal Irish Constabulary is disposed of by contract as the result of tenders obtained in the open market. Advertisements for tenders are inserted in Irish newspapers, and Irish firms, therefore, have full opportunity to tender. No tender, however, has been received from any Irish trader.

EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) BILL.
Consolidated from the Education (Provision of Meals) Bill and the Education (Provision of Meals) (Scotland) Bill. Reported, with Minutes of Evidence, from the Select Committee, with Amendments, and with an Amended Title.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 288.]
Bill, as amended, re-committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 331.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
Ordered, That on this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, business other than Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the Clock.—(Sir Henry Campbell-Banner-man.)

SUPPLY [11TH ALLOTTED DAY, 2ND PART.]
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1906–7.
1. £2,407,600, Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.—Personnel.
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUNDROBERTSON, Dundee) said: I believe I am taking a somewhat unusual course in asking the Committee to listen to a short statement before the discussion of this Vote begins. But I would remind the Committee that the circumstances are unusual. We had to take over the whole of these Estimates from our predecessors, but in March I was careful to say that as to the shipbuilding vote we reserved our liberty in certain respects. I said the building of the four large vessels in the new programme would not commence till a late period, and that as to these vessels we did not propose to ask the Committee to tie its hand at present. It has been the regular practice for many years past to postpone the consideration of Vote 8 to a comparatively late period of the session, and in respect of that portion of the Estimates, therefore, I claimed a certain amount of freedom. I must begin by reminding the Committee that Vote 8, with which we are now concerned, is the most important vote in the Estimates, the aggregate of its three sections amounts to little less than £14,000,000—a sum, I may say, almost equal to the whole of the Naval Estimates when I first had the honour of becoming connected with the Admiralty. Vote 8 is the dominant vote, and all other votes depend upon it, and the kernel of this vote is the provision for new construction. The provision for new construction, taken roughly, is nine millions and a quarter for the present year, and by new construction, I ought to explain, we mean the building of ships that are not yet
68
complete, no matter when they may have been begun—one, two, or three years ago, or they may not be begun yet. So long as they are new, not finished, the money devoted to their building is the provision for new construction. But the new programme of the year is a different thing altogether, it is part of the new construction, but a peculiar part, and I call it the inner core of Vote 8. The new programme means those ships that under these Estimates are to be laid down for the first time.
I have given the amount of new construction in the shipbuilding not yet complete as nine millions and a quarter. The sum taken for the new programme of the present year is £645,000 only—by far the most important and significant part of the vote. Vote 8 as a whole must go on, the new construction on the whole must proceed, ships in need of repair must be repaired, ships begun must be finished; but as to the new programme the Committee has the freedom I claimed for it, the freedom which I also claimed for myself and the Admiralty. The new programme might be called a mouldable and plastic thing. I have in my possession a record of the Estimates of recent years, showing how the new programme, originally set forth in official papers, has been modified either by increase or diminution in the course of the session in which it was submitted to Parliament. It is a plastic thing which the House has full control over, and that is the main reason why this part of the Estimates is kept back so late in the session as it is usually. The Estimates as a whole are prepared in November; they are considered beforehand, so that probably in most cases the new programme will be a year old before it is presented. These Estimates were framed in November, and published shortly afterwards. We took them over from our predecessors. They knew, and we knew, that the programme of November might have to be modified, as in many cases they have had to be modified, before the present period of the session. It is to give Parliamentary Government a free hand on this part of the Estimates that the wise practice of recent years keeps back this Vote till the present period of the session. This year we have had an exceptional advantage. Usually, if I am not mistaken, we have had to discuss Vote 8 without

69
having before us the Return annually moved for by my right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean. This year I have taken care that the Return should be expedited, and it has been in the hands of Members many weeks, and it is the best text-book I can take in considering the proposals I have now to mention.
I come to the main statement I have to make at this point-namely, the new programme set forth in the memorandum accompanying the Estimates signed by my noble friend the First Lord. What does the new programme of the last Admiralty and the last Government consist of? We proposed, according to the official paper referred to, to begin building this year four classes of new ships. Four of these ships, much the most important part of the whole programme, we described as being armoured vessels. I think it is the undoubted fact that these four armoured vessels should be of the "Dreadnought" type.
MR. ARTHUR LEEwas understood to assent to the proposition.
*MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Secondly, five ocean-going destroyers; thirdly, twelve coastal destroyers; and, fourthly, twelve submarines. The Board of Admiralty has given this new programme the most anxious consideration during the period of five months which has elasped since we laid the Estimates as a whole before the Committee. I have now to say what they propose to do after this reconsideration and review. It is the unanimous opinion of the Board of Admiralty that the new programme I have detailed should be reduced in the following particulars. Instead of four "Dreadnoughts" we propose to lay down only three. Instead of five ocean-going destroyers we propose to lay down only two. We leave the coastal destroyers at twelve, but we propose to reduce the number of submarines from twelve to eight. Let me state as clearly as I can the financial effect of what we propose. The old new programme, if I may so call it — the original new programme only calls for the trifling expenditure of £645,000 in this year's Estimates. The burden was to fall on future years. I propose now
70
to state to the House the amount of liability involved in the original new programme. The amount of expenditure to which it would have committed the country and the House, the total liability on the original new programme, according to Lord Cawdor's Memorandum and our own Estimates, was on Vote 8 £8,132,000 in rough figures, and if we add to that the correlative expenditure on Vote 9 for armaments, which is really part of the programme—a sum of £1,210,000—we have a total committal by the original new programme from beginning to end of about £9,340,000.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Spread over a period of years.
*MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Yes. In the case of the "Dreadnoughts" it would take two years, so that the heavy liability would be in the second year. I will now state what is the corresponding liability in the revised new programme which I submit on behalf of the Admiralty. Our new programme, revised as I have stated, involves a total liability of £5,900,000 in Vote 8 alone, or, if we add armaments, a total liability of £6,800,000. In other words, we reduce the total committal of the new programme from £9,300,000 to £6,800,000, or a reduction of £2,500,000. I proceed to take the financial effect of our proposed reductions, first on the current Estimates, and secondly on the Estimates for the next year. I do not think I will venture further than that. The financial result on this year's Estimates will be that about a quarter of £645,000 will not be spent on the new programme. But there are contingent necessities, such as the salvage of the "Montagu," which must be provided for, so that the total of this year's Estimates will not benefit very much by the reduction. It is on next year's that the first and main effect of our proposals will appear.
Although we are reducing the sum to be paid, under this year's Estimates I do not think that the full financial effect of our proposals will be felt till next year. The financial effect on next year's Estimates 1907–8 will be that there will be a lightening of those Estimates to the following extent. Vote 8 will be lightened by the sum of £1,305,308. If

71
I throw in the corresponding part of Vote 9 the net result is that next year's Estimates will be lightened to the extent of £1,488,680, or roughly speaking £1,500,000. I should give notice now, though it is not relevant to the Vote, that in connection with the reduction of the number of destroyers, it will be necessary to lay down, early in the next financial year, what is called a mother ship or a parent ship for torpedo boat destroyers. Usually ships are laid down late in the year, but it is thought that this particular parent ship should be laid down early in the year, although it will not form part of this year's Estimates. Now as to the types. The three armoured vessels which will take the place of the four armoured vessels of the original programme will be "Dreadnoughts" with a displacement of 600 tons in excess of that of the first vessel of this class. Of these three vessels one will be given out to private contractors and two will be built in Government dockyards, one at Portsmouth and the other at Devonport. As to the mother ship for destroyers, I believe I am right in saying that it will probably go to Pembroke. Ocean going and coastal destroyers have always hitherto gone and will now go to private firms who have made a speciality of them, but there is to be a new departure in regard to submarines, which have always been built by private contract. This year the Admiralty propose to build some themselves, and these will go to Chatham.
I have now stated the revision which we propose in the new programme which we inherited from our predecessors, but my story is not yet complete. The Committee knows that a great international conference is soon to meet at The Hague having for one of its many objects an international movement in favour of the reduction of armaments. The Committee knows the attitude taken up by my right hon. friend the Foreign Secretary in regard to that proposal. The Committee is aware of its own Resolution unanimously passed calling upon the Government to further that movement in every way. All these things have been present in the minds of the Government and of
72
the Admiralty, and I have now to ask the indulgence of the Committ'ee for trespassing beyond the strict limit of the Estimates of this year and lifting the veil to some extent in regard to the Estimates of next year. Instead of the four armoured vessels which it was originally intended to lay down in 1907–8 we propose to make provision for two armoured vessels only, but with the proviso to be stated in the Estimates that a third armoured vessel is to be laid down if the proposals in regard to the reduction of armaments laid before The Hague Conference prove to be abortive. Further, the amount to be taken for new vessels to be laid down in 1907–8 is to be limited to a small sum, and they will not be commenced till a late period of the year, and this emphasises to The Hague Conference the good faith of the British Government in its desire to bring about a reduction of armaments. One further little digression may be allowed me. I do not want the Committee to come to the conclusion that what I have said exhausts the list of possible economies. I must say once more that the Board of Admiralty are unanimously satisfied that whilst these reductions may be made we shall nevertheless be maintaining the strength required to secure the naval supremacy of this country.
I should like, if I may, to anticipate possible criticisms of our economies. I hope I may not have to fight both sides of the House. I am well aware that there may be and probably will be two entirely different schools of critics each of which may be dissatisfied with our proposals. Some may ask "Why have you reduced so much," and others "Why have you reduced so little." I can hardly hope to satisfy both, but there are one or two considerations which I would ask them to bear in mind in their criticisms. First of all as to those who may object to our reductions, whom I think I may identify as supporters of the old Board of Admiralty which arranged the new programme we are reducing. Nevertheless I am forced to say that so many statements has been made about this question; there have been so many stories of dissension and resignations that I am compelled to do that which is generally recognised as an unwise thing and

73
that is to define the responsibility of our naval colleagues for the proposals which we are now making. I would remind my hon. friends opposite that the naval advisers of the First Lord are the same gallant and distinguished officers who filled similar positions under Lord Cawdor and before that under Lord Selbourne. Moreover, they are the authors of the original programme, but they have recently revised it. We have the authority of the authors of the original programme for saying that. It is unwise, I think, to separate our responsibility, and I think our solidarity should be maintained. I object, therefore, to separate the functions of the Naval Lords from those of their colleagues, but so much has been said about dissensions and resignations that I think it is right to say that they themselves have recommended us who are their colleagues to revise the new programme which we submit to the Committee. I do not think it would be prudent on my part to give reasons for the course we are taking. They are confidential reasons and I could not give them, but I may indulge in a general purvey of the naval position. The Sea Lords think that the balance of sea power will not be imperilled by the introduction of the changes we have recommended.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Does that include next year?
*MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The whole thing. They are convinced that the strength of the Navy at the present moment is overwhelming, and that is the best justification for the attitude we have taken up. I do not want to say anything about foreign Navies, but I must say with all caution and reserve that there is reason to believe that there has not been that progress and advancement which was anticipated when the Estimates were framed. I believe that is the opinion of the naval experts, and I believe it to be well founded.
I do not know how far I have carried conviction to the minds of those who seem to object to the cutting down of the programme, but may I now address myself for a few moments, mainly to those on this side of the House, who do not think we have cut down enough. I would
74
remind my hon. friends in the first place that in naval expenditure it is much easier to build up than to destroy. It is very easy, for example, to create moral and vested interests, but it is hard, indeed, to cut them down; and I hope my hon. friends who take what I may call an extreme view of the case will not press me over-much from that point of view. I have seen some ingenious calculations to the effect that the Navy Estimates should be reduced at once to the level at which they stood in 1898 or 1899, or some other year. My own opinion is that no courageous stroke of the pen will bring back the Estimates to that level in the compass of a single year. That is all I will say on that point. I would remind my hon. friends further of what I am sure they will never forget, what the Admiralty, at all events, must always remember—how vast are the Imperial responsibilities of this country and how entirely they depend upon the active strength of the British Navy. I am not speaking of the protection of the Colonies alone. Great Britain has sentimental interests, over and above her connection with the Colonies, all over the world. These must always be kept in mind in considering what possible reductions may be made in naval expenditure. Again, do not let us forget that under the present state of international law—whether it is right or wrong I say nothing—we, with our enormous commerce, stand in a peculiar danger on account of the liability of our private ships to be captured and destroyed by the enemy. It must also be remembered that so long as we have a Navy at all there must be a certain amount of annual replacement going on. And, finally, I must ask my hon. friends to bear in mind the skilled opinion as to the importance of the new type of battleship that has been emerging in recent years. We may be responsible for its emergence at this time, but the effect of the possible growth in other navies of a number of these enormous battleships has to be kept in mind by the British Admiralty. I hope my hon. friends will also bear in mind that unhappily the big battleship grows bigger and more expensive every year. It is a formidable problem. I think about twenty years ago or a little more a ship now doomed, the "Collingwood," a great

75
ship of her time, was laid down and launched at an expenditure of something like £700,000. The "Dreadnought"To-day costs from start to finish £1,800,000, and the new cruisers of the "Invincible" class cost very nearly as much. These growths are abnormal, and they impose enormous burdens on the people, but it is a fact that these things are going on and they are not to be forgotten. I ventured on the last occasion, in dealing with this subject, to read a memorable sentence uttered by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister at the Albert Hall, and I am going, in conclusion, to read a sentence or two from it again—
"I hold that the growth of armaments is a great danger to the peace of the world. The policy of large armaments keeps alive and stimulates the idea that force is the best if not the only solution of international difficulties. It is a policy which tends to inflame old sores and to open new ones. I submit to you that as the principle of peaceful arbitration gains ground it becomes one of the highest duties of Government to adjust those armaments to the newer and happier conditions of things."
I submit that the proposals I have made o-day are in strict keeping with the spirit and letter of that memorable decarlation.
*MR. ARTHUR LEEconfessed that he had listened to what the right hon. Gentleman had called the main kernel of the Government's proposals with deep regret, because he liked to think that the Navy should always be treated as a non-Party question in this House, and because it had been his privilege this session invariably to support the Government in the proposals they had brought forward with regard to the Navy. He was afraid he could not do so on the present occasion, and, judging from the sounds which came from other portions of the Committee, he gathered that the right hon. Gentleman was justified in his apprehension that he would have to face the fire from both broadsides on this occasion. The House of Commons was entitled to ask what justification the Government had for departing in July from their programme of March. What new facts had emerged since the Cawdor Memorandum was issued? There was no change for the better in international relationships or in the strategic problems which the
76
Empire might be called upon to face: There had certainly been no reduction in the foreign shipbuilding programmes; on the contrary, there had been large increases since the beginning of the year. Only one change had occurred, so far as he knew, and that was that a new Government had come into power which was desirous of effecting great economies; and apparently they thought that the simplest way of doing so was to take money from the two great spending departments, the Army and the Navy. It was also probably more optimistic in the pursuit of international disarmament than its predecessors. The right hon. Gentleman had trenched upon exceedingly delicate ground when he proceeded to shelter himself behind the Sea Lords, and wished the Committee to accept the theory that because these proposals had not resulted in the resignation of the Sea Lords therefore it was above criticism.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I make no such suggestion. I have been asked by the Sea Lords to say that they recommend these reductions, as they recommended the corresponding reductions last year to their colleagues.
*MR. ARTHUR LEEpointed out that the Sea Lords were not only technical but constitutional advisers, bound, like all other officials, to recognise political exigencies, and to adapt their advice accordingly, unless the changes proposed were in their opinion so disastrous that the only effective protest they could take was to resign office. Because that had not occurred the Government must not consider themselves exempt from serious criticism—at any rate, from those responsible for the programme which had now been abandoned. The right hon. Gentleman did not tell them when the three "Dreadnoughts" were to be laid down, or if there was to be any delay.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: They will be laid down at the time contemplated.
*MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid he was glad to hear that. The reduction in battleships, however, amounted to 25 per cent., in ocean-going destroyers to 60 per cent., and

77
in submarines to 33 per cent. of the whole programme. That could not be done without weakening the Navy of the future. ["No."] Certainly; he thought the right hon. Gentleman might be entitled to the applause of those who were in favour of a weaker Navy, but he was not entitled to the applause of those who believed that the maintenance of the two-Power standard, especially in ships of the newest and latest type, was absolutely essential to the existence of the Empire. The right hon. Gentleman had enlightened them a little as to what was at the bottom of the Government's action in this matter. He had explained that the Government believed in a vague theory of international disarmament, but there were no visible signs at present on the part of our foreign rivals that they intended to give practical expression to this dream. A certain amount of suspicion had even been displayed with regard to the motives of the British Government in the matter, and it had been suggested in more than one influential quarter that the action of the Government was partly the result of a desire of a world-wide Empire to restrict the legitimate growth of its rivals. But even if the principle of limitation of armaments were universally accepted by the Great Powers, how was a practical plan to be arrived at? What tribunal was to decide the relative strength of armies and naves for the Great Powers, and after the decision was arrived at, how was it to be enforced? It would be rather difficult outside this country to believe in the bona fides of the Government in this matter when the House heard only a few days ago the Secretary for War announcing that he was going to "give the lead"To foreign Powers in international disarmament and then, almost in the same breath, pointing out that he was providing a larger striking force for service over seas than this country had ever possessed before. That was not an argument that would carry conviction to the minds of our foreign rivals or enlarge their present belief in the sincerity of the Government in respect of this question. There was no one who would not genuinely welcome any rational scheme of reducing international armaments, but as had been well pointed out by Lord Lansdowne, who had done more practical
78
work in the cause of international peace than any other man living, the question was not so susceptible of easy solution as was popularly supposed. If the Prime Minister could get The Hague Conference to guarantee that other Powers would reduce their naval programmes in response to the bait that he had thrown out this year, he was sure that the result would be acclaimed by both sides of the House. But let us have that decision first. We were the only country in the world that depended for its very existence on the maintenance of its sea power, and surely it was not for us to set the pace in the reduction of our naval supremacy, though we should be glad to follow-others in making it. The right hon. Gentleman had said that we could afford to wait in view of our overwhelming superiority in first-class ships, basing his argument on the so-called Dilke Return laid before the House a few days ago, which, however convincing to the uninitiated, was one of the most misleading documents annually presented to a trusting Parliament. In this list of "first-class" battleships there were eleven quite obsolete and eight more obsolescent, and the Return suggested that Great Britain had sixty-one first-class battleships, built or building, as compared with fifty-eighty of the next two strongest Powers combined. That was a misleading statement.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Are none of the ships of the other Powers obsolescent?
MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid nothing like the same number as was put in this list. In Brassey's Naval Annual the number of first-class battleships of Great Britain, excluding the "Montagu" and the "Renown," was forty-nine as compared with fifty-one of the next two strongest Powers combined. This showed that we were not quite up to the two-Power standard even in ships of the ordinary type. The situation, however, had been completely changed as a result of the war in the Far East, and by the arrival of the "Dreadnought," which had discredited all existing types of facts-class battleships. According to the facts published by the Admiralty the "Dreadnought" had more than twice

79
the gun-power of any existing battle-ship, and sufficient speed and coal endurance to overhaul or out-manœuvre any battleship afloat. It was, however, most important to realise that the ships of the new type could not be mixed advantageously with the older types of battleships, and to attempt such a thing would deprive the new type of its peculiar and overwhelming advantages. To get the value of this new type there must be homogeneous squadrons. The first country that completed a fleet of "Dreadnoughts" would, ipso facto, secure the undisputed command of the sea. It could not be too strongly emphasised that the two-Power standard was not intended as a strategical rejoinder to any particular menace, but merely as a convenient margin readily adaptable to the changing conditions of naval power, and with the additional merits of being simply expressed and easily understood. Did the right hon. Gentleman still stand by the two-Power standard on that theory? If not, the change altered the whole basis on which our naval programmes in past years had proceeded. He also pointed out that practically the whole of the money spent in shipbuilding went back into the pockets of the people. There were few classes of employment which gave better wages to large numbers of our working classes. It was therefore surely inconsistent on the part of the Government, by one courageous stroke of the pen, to take away the equivalent of between £300,000 and £400,000 of wages from the working classes and on the other hand to give a dole of £200,000 to the unemployed for work which was bound to be absolutely unproductive. We were bound, if we intended to retain our naval supremacy, to retain a supremacy in ships of the new type. In the immediate future we would only have seven ships of the new type laid down as against six by France, three by Germany, and three by the United States. In the new type, therefore, we would fall far below the two-Power standard. We could not count on maintaining our superiority in building-speed. As to ships of the new type, our position seemed to be one not only of gravity, but of urgency. If money must be saved, let the Government pursue the policy of discarding more obsolescent ships and of
80
keeping fewer first-class ships in commission. But let them not destroy the line-of-battle fleet of the future by starving the building programme now. The inevitable result would be a panic in a few years, followed by an avalanche of extravagant expenditure. To accompany a reduction of the Army by a reduction in the Navy was to risk a national catastrophe in the pursuit of a showy Budget. The country did not desire great economies in the Navy Estimates, and would not tolerate any weakening in our naval strength. He gave the Government credit for proclaiming to the world their desire to promote the era of universal peace. But we owed the last fifty years of uninterrupted naval peace to the recognised invincibility of the British Navy; and once the belief in that invincibility were destroyed, the era of peace would be doomed.
MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid the fact that the Government were reducing their naval expenditure was a proof to foreign nations of the sincerity of their purpose. It was an insult to foreign nations for the hon. Member for Fareham to say that even although The Hague Conference recommended a reduction in armaments there was no guarantee that they would carry out the decision come to. He welcomed, so far as it went, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the proposed reductions. £2,500,000 was a small reduction, but it marked the turn of the tide. The expenditure upon preparations for war, naval and military, was admitted to be excessive. The great conference which came to a conclusion the other day had proved that there was a desire on all hands for a reduction in the cost of armaments. The announcement made by the Secretary to the Admiralty following upon the announcement of the Secretary for War would be welcomed by the friends of peace and arbitration all over the world as a genuine step towards a more sensible policy in the settlement of international disputes. He welcomed the policy of economy indicated by the right hon.. Gentleman, because it showed that at last the idea of maintaining bulk under the impression that we were maintaining efficiency had been exploded. No

81
greater falsehood could find currency than that mere bulk implied either strength or efficiency. Economy did not imply inefficiency. It simply implied that the necessary resources would be of the most efficient kind and that the best value possible would be obtained. He hoped the beginning which had been made that day of a more economical policy would be continued, and that the example would be followed, until the time came when nations would be ashamed to waste money on war and preparations for war while social reforms and humanitarian reforms were being starved.
MR. LAMBTONsaid that anyone would have supposed from the speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil that international disputes were settled by peaceful persuasion and that it was his view that it was not necessary to have any fighting force. But where should we be if we had not our Army and Navy at our back to carry out peaceful persuasions? He did not think we should be the victors in the dispute. The most important part of the speech of the Secretary to the Admiralty was that in which he alluded to what he called his new departure, when he took the dangerous step of introducing the names of the naval advisers of the Crown into discussions in this House. Vote 8, he had told the Committee, was a plastic sort of Vote and it seemed in the hands of the Government to be very plastic. The right hon. Gentleman had said a good deal on this Vote about its financial effects, but he did not say a word about its military effect; in fact, the whole tone of his speech was an apology to his own suporters for our having a Navy at all. He seemed, like the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, to rely upon. The Hague Conference. It seemed a dangerous policy to introduce the names of the naval advisers in this House, because what were the responsibilities of those naval advisers. He presumed they recommended programmes to the Government upon the absolute necessities of the case. In fact, that was apparent from the Report of Earl Cawdor, presented in November, 1905, which showed the view of the Admiralty in that year. Now the same gentlemen were prepared
82
to come forward apparently and say that they approved of the reduction of £2,500,000 whereas in 1905 they said the expediture then advocated was absolutely necessary. The Secretary to the Admiralty had said he would not mention much about foreign navies, but there was an Intelligence Department in the Government. Were they not aware in 1905 and in February, 1906, when Lord Tweed-mouth issued his Report, of the reasons put forward to-day for reducing the Estimates? Were they not then aware of the condition of foreign navies? How was it that the same naval advisers who declared last year that a large increase was necessary now authorised the Secretary to the Admiralty that it would be quite safe to spend £2,500,000 less on ships? That did not give him much confidence in their naval advisers, and he was afraid that political reasons had induced them to depart from military and naval considerations. Naval warfare was an almost unknown quantity. When they found the Secretary for War coming down to the House and adopting the blue-water theory surely it must entail upon them the necessity of keeping up an adequate Fleet instead of knocking off £2,500,000. He hoped some more intelligible reason would be given for these reductions.
MR. BEAUCHAMPsaid that unlike the hon. Member for Durham he was content to accept the unanimous opinion of the naval advisers, that the shipbuilding programme which was being put forward was sufficient to maintain what they certainly all desired, namely, the supremacy of the British Navy. He was glad that the ships to be built were battleships, and he hoped that the result of The Hague Conference next year would be that they would be able to reduce their programme from three battleships to two. He was not, however, particularly sanguine about the result of The Hague Conference, considering what they did in 1899. The Secretary to the Admiralty had drawn attention to what happened then, and had said that that conference was called primarily to endeavour to reduce the naval expenditure of the various countries of the world, because they were getting alarmed at the growth of the Naval expenditure in

83
this country which had risen by £20,000,000 between 1894 and 1906. During the same period the expenditure upon the navies of Europe and the United States had increased from £68,500,000 to £101,500,000. Therefore they could not be particularly hopeful that other nations would reduce their naval expenditure unless we gave them some evidence of our earnest desire to reduce our shipbuilding programme. He wished to call attention to one particular part of that subject which he thought must cause them all very considerable doubt and grave anxiety, and that was the continued and ever increasing growth of the cost of individual ships. The latest type of battleship—the "Dreadnought"— cost £1,800,000, and the "Invincible" class of cruisers cost only about £60,000 less than the latest battleship. If the cost of individual ships was to go on increasing in this way it must result in increasing our naval expenditure, or reducing the number of the vessels we had. He thought numbers were of very great importance. With our extremely wide and responsible area, with the interests we had in every quarter of the globe, with our huge mercantile marine and oversea commerce and the dependency of this country upon food from outside sources it was extremely important that we should not fall below the standard in point of numbers. There had always been a tendency to equality of vessels in the various navies of the world. That had always been so in the past, it was so now, and there was every reason to believe that it would be so in the future. We laid down a ship and the news went abroad that this country had laid down the most powerful and swiftest battleship in existence, and immediately other nations followed our views and laid down similar vessels and if possible a little superior. He wished to know if the Secretary to the Admiralty could confirm the information that Germany was going to lay down vessels of equal displacement to the "Dreadnought." He believed that France was going to do the same. It might be said that foreign Powers would build that type of ship whether we did or not, but he hardly thought that would be so, because it must necessitate on the part of Germany and France a large increase in harbour
84
and dock accommodation. He thought this country was to blame in this matter for building so many large vessels, because it was only increasing the cost to all other countries. He did not know that there was such a large balance of advantage in favour of the larger battleships. He was aware that experts differed upon this subject. We were going to lay down more of these big battleships although it was notorious that expert opinion was divided on the question of their relative advantage, and as to whether the advantage of speed and gun power which they possessed were commensurate with the increased cost. There were many naval officers who considered that big vessels could not be as easily manœuvred as the smaller class. There were, on the other hand, a large number of naval officers who did not hold that view. Of course, we were naturally bound by financial conditions which must limit the numbers, and it was a moot point whether we were wise in putting too many eggs into one basket. He spoke with all humility on this question, because he saw from the latest Memorandum that these large, powerful, and costly vessels were thought to be practically invincible. Up to the present, experience had shown that these large and costly vessels were just as vulnerable to the mine as smaller vessels. He was glad that no more costly armoured cruisers were to be laid down at present. One thing which was not previously known had been demonstrated by the war between Russia and Japan, and that was the supremacy of the battleship. Would it not be better under these circumstances to suspend the building of armed cruisers, and, if necessary, to some extent, expend the money in building battleships which would be able to perform the duties and functions of cruisers? He admitted that when other nations were building—and especially one nation —a large number of armed cruisers with the determination of destroying our commerce in the event of their being at war with us, it was necessary for us to build corresponding vessels. But when the other nations were now coming to the conclusion that these vessels were not suitable or necessary for the destruction of commerce he thought we might suspend the building of costly armed

85
cruisers until we saw whether other nations were going to continue them. Of course, questions of time, speed, and other matters, were of a technical nature, and could not be thrashed out in the House of Commons. They could be ventilated here, but ultimately they must be left to the naval advisers, in whom, he thought, the House might have the fullest confidence. He thought these advisers did not give quite sufficient attention to the financial side of the question. It was admitted that the numbers could not be maintained unless we increased our expenditure, and we could not indefinitely expand the expenditure.
*CAPTAIN HERVEYsaid he was afraid that this reduction in the Navy was symptomatic of what they had heard from the Secretary to the Admiralty on the subject on previous occasions. There was, as they all knew, a Party in this House who claimed to be specially anxious about economy. They were all anxious about economy, but they all wished to see the Navy kept up at the same time. There was a Party on the opposite side of the House who held that our Navy was stronger now than it ought to be, and who conceived that the present was a suitable time to retrench in our shipbuilding policy. The arguments used in support of this theory were, in the first place, that the recent Russian naval defeat had left us in an excessively strong position; secondly, that our present foreign relations with France, the next greatest naval power, did not necessitate such special precautions as had hitherto been considered advisable; thirdly, that even if we accepted the two-Power standard our expenditure should not be more than the sum of the expenditures of the next two strongest naval Powers. He desired o dissociate himself from those who held these views and to make a few remarks on the considerations that should govern our shipbuilding policy for the immediate future, and he suggested that the considerations that should govern us should be dependent solely on the maintenance of our own strong right arm and the righteousness
86
of our cause. We should never forget that wise saying of old—
" When a strong man armed keepeth his palace his goods are in peace, but when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted and divideth his spoil."
He would deal in the first place with our position due to the Russian naval defeat. Russia certainly could not be now deemed our "most likely potential enemy."the Russian menace was always principally a military menace, but the danger of that menace was heightened by the strength of her fleet when taken in conjunction with her ally France. The Russian military danger had been counterbalanced by our alliance with Japan, but our bargain with Japan was that we should keep up our present naval strength notwithstanding Russia's naval over-throw. In spite, then, of Russia's defeat our naval strength was still measured by the phrase the "two-Power standard" although the Powers might be different. This standard was not a mathematically exact one, but it gave a good working basis as to what we should aim at independently of ententes and the like, which had no guarantee in themselves that peace of a lasting character would be maintained. Our sole guarantee was our strength in battleships. For the reasons just given we need not so much consider why our next naval competitors were increasing their naval armaments, as how they were increasing them and what effect their action must have on our building policy. Germany had now taken the place of Russia as the next leading European naval Power and had shewn un-mistakeably her intention of progressively increasing her fleet. What was the essence of the two-Power standard? Surely it was that we should have a fleet of such a strength as to give us a reasonable prospect of victory against a combination of the two next strongest Powers; and these Powers were now France and Germany. What was the the aim of the two-Power standard? It was that in the event of our going to war with any other two Powers that we should have a fleet of battleships of such strength that we should

87
have practically a certainty of victory if we came into collision with their combined fleets. But we should not have an absolute certainty of victory if we were only equal in strength to the fleets of the two Powers. It was obvious that if our fleet were only ship for ship equal to those of the next two strongest Powers, we should not have a reasonable prospect —other things being equal—of victory. It would be a toss up who would win. We had no right to assume a monopoly of pluck or fighting capacity. Included, then, in the phrase the "two-Power standard" was the assumption that we should have 10 per cent. more battleships then those possessed by our rivals. This 10 per cent. would make allowance at the beginning of a war for battleships on foreign stations, as well as preponderance in numbers to ensure a reasonable prospect of victory. They all knew the advantage Japan got in their last war by getting in the first blow. A sufficient battleship squadron on the spot at the commencement of hostilities was obviously essential to our safety. He submitted therefore that in battleships we should have 10 per cent. more than any two combined Powers. He did not include cruisers in his calculation, because that class of ships was used for a perfectly different purpose, viz., for scouting and for the protection of our mercantile marine, which was the largest mercantile marine in the world. How did the standard of new construction laid down by the Admiralty in the statement of policy set forth by the Secretary to the Admiralty compare with that of France and Germany, taking into consideration their actual and projected expenditure, in the immediate future? In 1904 he understood that France and Germany combined had an expenditure on new construction of £10,300,000 compared with our expenditure of £12,500,000, so that we were more than £2,000,000 ahead of France and Gėrmany combined. In 1909, if they accepted the statements made on the Continent, France and Germany would expend £12,900,000 on new construction as compared with our expenditure of £10,100,000. That was to say that under the programme submitted to Parliament before it was proposed to reduce
88
it as now, we should be expending £2,800,000 on new construction less than France and Germany combined. Hon. Gentlemen would see that if we were to keep up the supremacy of our Navy in the future we must not only go on with the original programme of new construction, but in order to keep up with the two-Power standard in the future we might have to increase it. Could it be truly said that we were leading the pace in augmenting armaments? On the contrary, it was obvious that if France and Germany proceeded with their programme, as of course, they would, whatever preponderance we might now have would soon have vanished, and that instead of decreasing our programme, if we were to maintain our supremacy we might very likely before long have to increase our expenditure, unless we were content to lose our own guarantee for peace and safety. Turning from the question of expenditure to the actual number of armoured ships—battleships and cruisers— how did we stand, and how should we stand in the near future if we continued the policy laid down by the Government at the beginning of the year in the memorandum issued by the First Lord of the Admiralty of building four armoured ships annually? He had before in this House expressed the view, which he believed was held by our best admirals, that the useful efficient life of a battleship might be put at fifteen years. Taking into consideration this question of obsolete ships, our position at the beginning of 1906 was that we had forty-seven battleships less than fifteen years old against twenty-nine held by France and Germany. And as regarded armoured cruisers we had twenty-four as against twenty-two held by those two Powers. He wished to call attention to the curious fact that, in spite of our having twenty-four armoured cruisers against twenty-two possessed by France and Germany, it had been thought necessary to increase our superiority in battleships by three. Not only the Sea Lords, but the Civil Lords had agreed to that policy after the experience of the war between Japan and Russia. Admitting that we were numerically superior to other countries at present, we ought to look a little ahead. Taking,

89
the standard as before, and not taking into consideration the abominable reductions which had just been announced— [Cries of "Oh, Oh?"]—he used the only words he could to express the feelings of a man who had served in the Navy— what would be the position in 1910? He was in a little bit of a difficulty with regard to the figures as they would stand at the end of 1910, since he did not know whether the armoured ships our Admiralty were to lay down were to be armoured cruisers or battleships. So they had to consider the total number of armoured cruisers and battleships against the total armoured cruisers and battleships of France and Germany at that date. He thought, however, that the correct figures would be that Great Britain would have had under the programme of February last, if it had been carried out, eighty-three, while France and Germany would have had sixty-seven. That would seem a very satisfactory position, but he would like to test it in the light of the experience gained in the war between Japan and Russia and the alterations in shipbuilding consequent thereupon What had been proved beyond doubt and what he believed the right hon. Gentleman had agreed to was that many protected cruisers which we had had in the past, and of which we had laid 150 upon the scrap heap were practically useless for war. That had been agreed to as good policy and he saw no attempt to bring these cruisers back into the service. But there were still a large number of protected cruisers in the Fleet which were of very little use far war, such as the "Terrible" and the "Powerful" We should not forget the services they rendered in connection with the South African War, but it was not the ships that fought but the men. The ships never fought and never came in actual collision with the enemy, and for his part he was glad that they did not, because they were comparatively useless ships. He would ask hon. Gentlemen to consider whether, when after the termination of their present Commissions these ships came in the ordinary course into dockyard hands, it would be worth the Admiralty's while to spend the large sum necessary to make them efficient or whether it would not be
90
better to scrapheap them for the same reasons that had led them to scrap-heap the 150 others. The ships which would have to be put into the place of the "Powerful" and the "Terrible" and such like monsters should be the armoured cruisers which the Admiralty did not pretend that they were going to lay down this year at all. He did not find fault with the fact that the Government were proposing to build three battleships, but he thought that on the figures they ought to build armoured cruisers also. He did not think the Sea Lords would, if left to their own free will, have advised the Government to reduce the shipbuilding programme. This programme was put before the House in February when they said what they thought it was right to do, and they would never, if left to themselves, have cut it down in July. But hon. Gentlemen must look a little further ahead, because the programmes of shipbuilding laid down by foreign countries went further than even the year 1910. Supposing they went a little further and calculated what the result of the shipbuilding programmes would be twelve years hence. Taking fifteen years as the life of a battleship and considering battleships and armoured cruisers, he believed the statement was correct that if we went on on the basis before this reduction was proposed then our position in 1919 would be this: Great Britain would have sixty-three to France and Germany's sixty-eight, that was to say that instead of our being in a position of supremacy under the two-Power standard we should be five ships behind. He chose some date far ahead because, first, that date was the one that marked the completion of the present foreign programmes, and, secondly, because, he did not wish to see a small bit of shipbuilding this year, a big bit of shipbuilding another year and a bigger bit the year after. What he wanted was continuity of policy. If the Secretary to the Admiralty would get up and say that he would continue to build three ships every year until we reached the twoP-ower standard that would be the sort of continuity of policy which he asked for. He said, however, that we ought to build four ships every year until we attained the two-Power standard and then to maintain it

91
at that standard. This, he believed, the country wished for, and this they would sooner or later make the Government carry out. As to the size of battleships it had been said that it was bad to build big ships because they cost so much, but he never knew anything which if you wanted to get the best did not cost a large sum of money. He had always acted upon that principle in his private affairs and had found it pay, and in his judgment the best things to buy were big battleships. It was said in the last days of wooden ships that a two-decker was better than a three-decker. That might be so in those times, because there was a limit to the size of vessels built of wood beyond which they could not go. Conditions were different now that iron had replaced wood and steel had replaced iron. No limit had yet been reached as to the size of the ship we could build. Increased armaments, speed, and coal capacity could here be obtained without sacrificing other essential features. The new ships should not be cruisers, but battleships. What we needed were the biggest battle-ships with the biggest armaments in order that this country might wipe the floor with any nation which had the temerity unnecessarily to come into collision with it.
*MR. BRAMSDONexpressed, his gratitude to the Secretary to the Admiralty for the extremely clear way in which he had put this Vote before the country. Never had he heard a Vote put in a better or clearer way. The statement was unanswerable. The Admiralty had as their advisers the most experienced professional men that the world had ever seen. Especially was that the case at the present time. He did not think anybody would deny that they were equal to the best in British history. Those advisers were perfectly satisfied with the scheme propounded this afternoon. If they had been at sixes and sevens with the First Lord and with those who had associated themselves with him he could have understood a big debate taking place in the House, but as it was he suggested that they might accept the statement of the Secretary to the Admiralty and feel satisfied that our Naval interests were properly
92
looked after. He believed in a strong Navy, and in the two-Power standard, and he would reject anything which would endanger the stability of the Navy. He reminded the Committee that the gross steam tonnage of the British Empire was already 16,000,000, the next highest being Germany with 3,000,000. If these figures were looked at the Committee would understand what was necessary for the defence of our Empire. While he believed in having a strong Navy he felt sure that the nation was safe in the Admiralty's hands, as he had implicit confidence in those who were now in power. Considering the enormous size of the British mercantile marine as compared with that of all the other nations of the world, a very great responsibility rested on the Admiralty, but he believed they could place implicit confidence in the Government. He rather resented the insinuation that the responsible professional advisers were not quite honest in the advice which they gave.
*CAPTAIN HERVEY: I did not impute any dishonest motive to the Sea Lords, I only intended to suggest that they did not deal with the Estimates for this year only. They had to bear in mind the policy of future years, and if they cut the expenditure down now, they knew they must increase the amount in the future, and that point had not been brought out by the Secretary to the Admiralty.
*MR. BRAMSDON: I understood the hon. and gallant Member to say that if the Sea Lords had been left alone they would not have given the same advice.
*CAPTAIN HERVEY: Certainly.
*MR. BRAMSDONsaid that in his opinion that was not so. To say that the distinguished gentlemen at the head of the Admiralty gave their advice subject to the views of those who came to them for advice was preposterous. They ought to place unbounded confidence in the professional advisers of the Admiralty.
MR. COURTENAY WARNER (agreed with those who declared that they must keep up

93
the two-Power standard, and believed that practically the Government proposal did that. At any rate that was the intention of the Government. Let them remember that in recent years we had got considerably ahead of that standard, and we possessed a very large margin over it at the present moment. No doubt the ships of the "Dreadnought" class would be a very valuable addition to the Navy, for they would be able while attacking an enemy effectively to keep out of the range of their opponents' fire. They would indeed constitute the real fighting strength of the Navy. As to the reduction in the number of cruisers he thought there was some justification for that, and he was strengthened in his opinion by the fact that France had discontinued building vessels of this class. What he wanted to know, however, was whether the oceangoing destroyers would be able to take the place of the cruisers in the future; whether they would be able to undertake all their duties? He did not think they were justified in reducing the number of destroyers if they were to take the place of the cruisers, which had constituted a class of enormous importance to this country, seeing that it had in the past been mainly charged with the protection of our mercantile marine and with the safeguarding of our food supplies in time of war. These matters would require careful consideration by the Board of Admiralty, which should ask the Secretary if a reduction in the number of destroyers to be built would not be dangerous seeing that they were to replace the cruisers.
*MR. BELLAIRS (Lynn Regis)congratulated the Secretary to the Admiralty on the clear and lucid statement he had made, and said that so far as this year's programme was concerned he was thoroughly satisfied with three battleships; the real fight would of course take place on the programme of next year, with which they were not concerned on the present occasion. As far as the Sea Lords were concerned they had not a leg to stand upon—not a sea leg at any rate. They issued one statement last year, and all the changes which had occurred since made, he submitted, for increased armaments. Yet now they had
94
authorised the First Lord to make a totally different statement ! What changes had occurred? There were the increased armaments on the part of France and Germany, the loss of the "Montagu," and the somewhat ill-advised resolution of the Admiralty not to work overtime in the dockyards, the result of which would be that our ships would not be built so quickly as hitherto. Then the effect of the destruction of the Russian fleet had been to enable Germany to concentrate the whole of her ships in the North Sea, as well as the torpedo flotilla, which was a threat against our battleships. There was also the new policy of the Government in respect of the Army. Defence now rested entirely with the Navy. All these and other changes, he contended, made for increase of responsibility, and, therefore, increase of armaments. No doubt the "Dreadnought" would possess immense firing superiority over other ships, and we were bound to maintain that superiority. There was a gain in speed at least of five knots, the big guns were 2½ times as numerous, each one firing twice as quickly, and the penetrating power was 50 per cent. better than that of the "Majestic" class. The outlined future programme of next year was a reduction of a reduction. In 1901 there were thirty-nine ships of over 5,000 tons under construction; there were now only seventeen, and the programme provided that in 1908 there would be only five under construction. That was an enormous reduction, and in face of that they saw the most stupendous exertions being made by Germany, which had always increased her programme since 1898. The reductions which the Admiralty had achieved —he was not including the new reductions —since 1904 amounted to £5,000,000 sterling on Naval Estimates and £5,000,000 sterling on works, apart from Rosyth, which he personally hoped would not be proceeded with. The relative increase in the Navy estimates of Germany by 1909 would be just under £10,000,000, as compared with the Navy Estimates of Great Britain since 1904. Allowing for our savings on Works Bills and that which Germany was going to spend for naval purposes, there would be a relative increase in Germany of £27,000,000. That was apart from the deductions which the Secretary

95
to the Admiralty had foreshadowed, and it allowed for £10,000,000 to be spent on the Kiel Ship Canal to accommodate the new battleships. Several speakers on the Ministerial side, rather in the form of interruptions, talked of our being up to a three-Power standard. He knew they were honest in thinking we could safely reduce our ship-building, but he had never been able to discover that, taking ships building and projected as we ought, we were more than up to a two- Power standard as regarded France and Germany. Brassey's Annual gave France and Germany as having thirty-two second and third class battleships to our three excluding the "Llama" class, or ships which the Powers did not think it worth while to maintain. Putting these out of consideration and confining attention to first class battleships, they would find Brassey's Annual gave us fifty-one battleships, deducting the "Montagu," built and building, to forty-one of France and Germany. The moment they took in the projected programmes they found a different state of affairs. In four years we should have fifty-four to fifty-one of Germany and France. But if they allowed the contention, which he believed to be true, that the "Dreadnought" was equal to three "Majesties,"then in four years we should have sixty-one units as compared with seventy-one units of Germany and France. Between the years 1778 to 1850 we were always twice as strong as France in battleships, and generally much more than twice as strong in frigates. If the Government were only to build one "Dreadnought"In a year and one armoured cruiser, all he could say was that by 1919 all our ships prior to 1900 would be obsolete and Germany would be superior in battleships, while our cruiser strength would be absurdly inadequate; in fact, Germany would have a total of forty first-class battleships by 1919 if she continued her policy of building two battleships a year as compared with twenty-nine or twenty-eight in this country if for the future we were to have a cut down programme of only one battleship. He thought the minimum programme we could possibly pursue must be two to three battleships a year, and to this had to be added a suitable number of
96
cruisers. With regard to the question of cruisers, the Return of Fleets gave us thirty-eight armoured cruisers as compared with thirty-two in France and Germany. That was not a very marked superiority, and taking all cruisers, excluding the "Llama" class, we had 111 to exactly 100 of France and Germany. It might be said that we had an individual superiority of type. So we had in many cruisers, but no strategy would provide that a cruiser could be in two places at one time. In the last prize essay of the United Service Institution it was said that we wanted seventy-four cruisers for scouting. Lord Spencer, one of the best First Lords this country had ever had, said last year—
"I have always maintained that we must have a much larger number of cruisers than any two other Powers."
That larger number certainly did not exist. Sir Phipps Hornby had said that we wanted 236, and Sir Cyprian Bridge, before the Food Supply Commission, stated that we required a numerical advantage of 50 per cent. in cruisers as compared with hostile cruisers attacking our commerce. The policy of the Government as outlined by the Secretary to the Admiralty was practically to build no cruisers at all. Certainly none were to be laid down this year. In 1903 we had 162 cruisers; to-day, we had 102. There was not the slightest doubt that by 1909 eleven "Pandoras," two "Barhams," two "Blakes," and nine "Edgars" would have to be scrapped, and we should then have seventy-eight as compared with 162 in 1903.
*MR. BOWLESsaid that nobody who had had the advantage of serving in His Majesty's Navy for however short a time could fail to have been impressed, at any rate, with the extreme importance of the statement which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman. There could be no question that of all the matters connected with the Navy none was more important than proposals solemnly made upon the responsibility of the Admiralty to effect a real and substantial reduction in our naval strength. It was incumbent upon the Committee to very carefully consider whether or not under all the circumstances such a reduction

97
ought to be made. The hon. Member for King's Lynn began his speech with what he understood to be an expression of gratitude to the Secretary to the Admiralty for having been able to announce this reduction. He did not glean from the remainder of the hon. Gentleman's speech any reasons for that gratitude, or, indeed, anything but a somewhat crude attack upon the Admiralty for the line they had taken. As he understood, the Secretary to the Admiralty based his case for this reduction upon two considerations. He said in the first place that there was a spirit abroad among the nations tending towards universal peace and the settlement of national disputes by arbitration, and that that as it stood was sufficient reason or, at any rate, was a very strong contributory reason why they were justified in making reductions in what, after all, was our only, certainly our first, line of defence. For his part, he thought nothing of that argument at all. He did not desire to say anything against the principle of the settlement of disputes by arbitration, but he believed that at present it was, and must be, recognised by reasonable men to be a mere dream— a dream which all desired to see realised, but which it was dangerous in the highest degree to put forward as a real reason why we should reduce the force upon which the existence of everyone in these islands directly depended. But the right hon. Gentleman had another and far more weighty reason, namely, that the considered opinion of the expert advisers of the Admiralty was that this was an economy which could be effected absolutely consistently with the complete maintenance of our naval supremacy. The question for the Committee was whether or not it was really the fact that that supremacy could be maintained if this reduction were carried out. He agreed with hon. Gentlemen who said there was considerable difficulty in arriving at what the facts really were in this matter. The Dilke Return had been referred to as a misleading statement. He strongly agreed with that remark. It was not possible to arrive at the real facts from a study of that Return, and the more one tried to find out what our naval strength
98
was compared with that of other Powers the more one was beset by apparently insuperable difficulties. In a letter to The Times that morning Lord Brassey said that, so far as our present existing balance of power was concerned, there was no question whatever that we were well above the two-Power standard. It was true that Lord Brassey based his figures upon the Dilke Return to some extent, but after all one could not altogether neglect that Return. But what Lord Brassey said was that in ships ready for service we were equal to any three European Powers combined. He did not know that he accepted that in its entirety, but he did accept it as showing that we were at this moment well above the two-Power standard in effect. Therefore the only question was as to the future. The real difficulty of comparison was that our figures did not include any considerable proportion of ships that could be called inefficient or at any rate obsolete. There was no similar security with regard to the lists of foreign ships. All comparisons in the Dilke Return and Brassey's Annual assumed that every ship of every foreign Power was absolutely as up-to-date as ours. He did not believe it, and if comparisons were to be made merely upon the figures then greater weight, if anything, ought to be given to our figures than to those of foreign Powers. There was, he thought, one consideration which governed and dominated the whole of our shipbuilding constructive policy, and that was that this country was able to build the ships she required much more quickly than any other Power in the world. Let them take the casa of the "Dreadnought." He was informed, and he did not believe it would be contradicted, that that battleship, which was the largest, the most complex, and the most powerful ship that had ever been built for war purposes, would be finished within two years from the time that it was first decided at the Admiralty that such a ship should be built. He understood that if Germany laid down a "Dreadnought"To-day she would not be ready for three and a half years, so that to keep pace we should not have to begin to build such a vessel for eighteen months. That being so, what was the

99
position in which any reasonable Board of Admiralty found itself? Surely the constructive policy of this country was dictated by that fact. Surely it was not only wise but imperative in the interests of the taxpayer to keep our money in our pockets for that eighteen months and take advantage of the interest on our money and all the advances in naval science during that time. At the end of the eighteen months, if it were deemed fit to answer the German "Dreadnought," we could lay down our "Dreadnought," and both ships would be launched at the same time. The Alpha and Omega of our naval policy might be summed up in two words—quick building and quick hitting. We had got quick building and we were getting quick hitting. He for his part could not shut his eyes to the enormous advantages which we got from quick-building, and it was for the right hon. Gentleman and his officials to do all they could to get every advantage which this country enjoyed from the enormous saving in time by quick building. That being the general attitude of mind in which he approached this question he had not much difficulty in coming to a conclusion. He did not suppose there was an hon. Gentleman in the House who did not desire to maintain the two-Power standard with all that it meant. He did not understand that it was contended in any quarter of the House that this reduction involved any departure from that standard, at any rate for some considerable time. The year 1919 had been suggested. He regarded that year with the most profound equanimity. He took the view that many things might happen before 1919, and he refused for his part to be greatly disturbed by gloomy prognostications as to things that could only happen in that distant year. The hon. Gentleman for King's Lynn, he understood, although deeply grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having made this reduction, was under some doubts as to the meaning of it. The hon. Gentleman spoke on naval matters with all the ability which naturally belonged to a sailor and a naval officer. He had not the slightest doubt that if the hon. Gentleman were put in to a boat at the foot of th Terrace he would get across to Lambeth
100
without any serious mishap. He was sometimes inclined to think that the air of King's Lynn had been, somewhat too strong for the Liberalism of the hon. Gentleman, and he could not resist taking this opportunity of complimenting him upon the stout Toryism with which the air of that borough appeared to have inoculated him. He did not agree with the hon. Member, and he was content to believe that the Sea Lords of the Admiralty knew their business. He refused to be drawn into a miserable chorus of detraction of gallant officers unable to reply for themselves, who were doing their duty to their country in the best way they could according to their lights. When the Secretary to the Admiralty told them that he had the definite and personal authority of the Sea Lords to assure this House that, they recommended this reduction he was content to rely upon that assurance.
MR. BRIGHTsaid the idea of economy was one which very naturally occurred to the minds of all Members sitting on the Liberal side after the country had witnessed for so long a time the extravagance of the late Government. The country was as much stirred by the idea of economy as by any other subject that was brought before it at the recent general election. Members of the Opposition side had expressed their sorrow at the proposals put forward in the naval statement. Of course they were sorry, but their orrow was the joy of Ministerialists. Hon. Members had said that in a few years there would be a panic and that the country would have then to go in for large expenditure for a great number of new ships. But panics were the sort of thing hon. Gentlemen opposite dealt in. Jingoes naturally went in for panics, and there was no more timid and shrinking person than an Imperialist Jingo. He saw a robber in every bush and looked with suspicion on all the world—everybody was going to hurt him. Liberals had not that feeling of timidity. They had a very great asset at present—they had got rid of the "new diplomacy."they should apply no more bluff to foreign Powers, at any rate until they were able to back it up. The late Government took the greatest possible Army and the greatest possible

101
time to subdue the smallest possible enemy. He did not believe that any Power wished to attack this country. We were friendly with every Power in Europe as far as we knew. He was very glad that the Secretary to the Admiralty had announced economies. This was most valuable in view of the forthcoming meeting at The Hague, for it showed our bona fides. It showed that we were willing to take the lead, if not in reducing, at least in limiting armaments, and he hoped we should be followed by other Powers in this respect. He came to the House to promote economy, to promote peace, and to promote free trade. These subjects very greatly interested his constituency—a very large and very intelligent constituency.
MR. CROOKS: And very well represented.
MR. BRIGHT: It was very greatly moved on this question of economy and the result had been that it had returned two Liberal Members. He congratulated the Government on their proposals and he was sure they would lead to a great strengthening of the desire for peace all over Europe.
MR. O. C. PHILIPPSsaid that, speaking as a shipowner, he was a strong supporter of a powerful Navy. At the present time our mercantile marine was about three times as large as that of two of our most powerful competitors, and, therefore, a two-Power Navy was a very small standard for Great Britain. He would have been pleased if the Government had seen their way to provide four ironclads, for he believed it was possible to have economy in the Navy and yet maintain a large building programme. The true policy of this country was to maintain a large building programme and to look for that economy in the Navy by discarding obsolete and semi-obsolete vessels that were now on the list of the Navy and tended very largely to increase the annual cost. He said that as a practical ship owner. He believed that the policy adopted more recently of scrapping old vessels and selling them for what they would fetch might be very considerably ex-
102
tended, and it would be possible to use the money so saved in building more powerful vessels and keeping the Navy to the height at which it ought to be kept. Great Britain had enormous advantage over her competitors from the fact that she was a free trade country. The money which we expended produced a very much better result than an equal amount spent by other Powers. We got a larger amount of tonnage for the same amount of money than any foreign country. He would like to say one word to the Committee with reference to the question of building. When they came to build the vessels he hoped the Government would yet see their way to employ fully all the dockyards before giving out work to be done by contract. No private employer would think of giving out work to private contract so long as he had any of his own men unemployed, and it was a sound Liberal principle that they should keep their own men employed, and, not as had been done in the past, discharge large numbers of their own employees whilst distributing work elsewhere. In the case of Pembroke Dockyard, there had been no less than 700 men discharged during last year, and this in the case of a town which had been entirely built since the Government some hundred years ago instituted a dockyard at that place. Previously there was not a single house there. It had been stated that Pembroke Dockyard was not a place in which to build the largest class of vessels, but as a practical shipowner he defied any expert who had visited the place to declare that Pembroke Dockyard was unable to build "Dreadnoughts," or vessels very much larger, as economically, as quickly, and as well as any other dockyard in the Kingdom. They would be told that it was not reasonable for the Government to give all the work to the national dockyards, but he reminded the Committee that in the case of work given to the national dockyards out of every £1,000,000 expended £800,000 was given to private contractors for the supply of armour plates, material, and engines; therefore, even if the whole of the work of the country was given to the national dockyards, which was a thing that no one proposed in times when there was a large building programme it would still mean that

103
four-fifths of the money would be distributed among private firms. It was no use building fine vessels like the "Dreadnought" unless they provided ample dry dock accommodation around the coasts for them. In the case of war they might have to repair these vessels, and, if so, plenty of graving docks would be wanted. He urged the Government to consider this question of increasing the number of graving docks and dry docks round the coasts. He hoped they would also consider the desirability of having a large graving dock in Milford Haven, which had just been used for the great scheme recently carriedout by the Admiralty. In conclusion, he pointed out that in Wales they had only one large national establishment, namely, the dockyard at Pembroke. He hoped the Government would do their utmost to give that establishment a reasonable measure of support, so as to keep the men engaged there fully employed.
SIR ALFRED THOMAScongratulated the Government on their new programme. What he was sorry for was that they did not proceed farther in the direction in which they were going. They had heard a great deal about the two-Power standard, but the question was not how to rival other Powers, but to ascertain what Navy we required ourselves. Nelson said—
"Thank God the Spaniards cannot build men."
But we in England could build both men and ships to-day, and he thought hon. Gentlemen opposite should take heart of grace and not be so panic-stricken, for we had got men who could fight and we had got a few ships too. He also congratulated the late Government, represented on the Front Bench opposite by the hon. Member for the Fareham division, on their action in scrapping so many ships that could neither fight nor run away. It was a criminal act to put men into ships when neither the guns could be fought nor the ships run away. He trusted that the Government would take a heroic view of this question and be governed, if necessary, not even by the Sea Lords, but by common sense and a little pluck. He wished to
104
support the remarks of the hon. Member for Pembroke in regard to Pembroke Dockyard. There was not a better dockyard in England. On behalf of Wales, he asked the Secretary to the Admiralty to see that that country had justice done to it.
MR. MADDISONdeprecated the lively and not very healthy competition between dockyard Members for orders. [Cries of "Oh, oh ! "and "Withdraw."] He had yet to learn that getting an order was a dishonourable thing. [Cries of "Withdraw."] He had nothing to withdraw. He meant what he said. During the course of this debate hon. Members opposite and one or two on the Ministerial side of the House had spoken as though the proposals of the Government were going to destroy the Navy and threaten the safety of the Empire. It was perfectly well known that this statement was to be made, but there were not more than half-a-dozen Members on the benches opposite when it came to be made. He should have thought that the representatives of the great Imperialist Party would have been present in their full strength to defend the Empire, and to maintain the present situation. He recommended hon. Members opposite to have a little more courage; they should understand that risk was a part of the naval profession. Nelson had been quoted; but he would remind hon. Members that Nelson never said, as it had been said in this debate, that our Navy would certainly be defeated if we had not as many ships as the enemy. He would ask the hon. Member who said that to get a little more tonic.
MR. BELLAIRSsaid that Nelson was always asking for reinforcements.
MR. MADDISONsaid that Nelson asked for reinforcements on the quarterdeck and not in this House. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh."] He thought that the quarter-deck was better training ground than the floor of the House. The hon. Member for Norwood, who had made an admirable answer to the hon. Member for King's Lynn, referred to the fact that we could not rely for any length of time on a particular type of ship. No doubt the scrapping policy

105
was a very good one in some respects, but it might become a very bad one if we based our faith on a particular type of ship. None of the service Members had shown that the Sea Lords were wrong in recommending this reduction; and as those who supported retrenchment had the Sea Lords on their side, they meant to make the most of it. He would be interested to hear how the Leader of the Opposition would deal with this question. He had had three years' experience of the right hon. Gentleman, and he wished that he had not such a command of choice and charming language, for, although he was convinced that the right hon. Gentleman was generally wrong in his conclusions, while he was speaking the right hon. Gentleman for the moment sometimes upset him. There was one flaw in the speech of the hon. Member for Norwood, and that was an attempt to belittle The Hague Conference. After all, we had some interest in humanity; and how long were the people of the world going to treat an era of peace as a dream? If our religion was worth anything at all, peace ought to be one of the elementary things of every-day life. We had learned to settle our differences in private life without the duel.
MR. CROOKSsaid that a good many people had been shooting at him, and he would like to hit back.
MR. MADDISONsaid he wanted to enter his protest against the idea that the proposal to reduce armaments was within the domain of dreams. He ventured to say that the Prime Minister had proved himself a statesman in the highest and best sense of the word when at the Albert Hall, and at the Inter-Parliamentary Conference, he said that the arrest of armaments, far from being a dream, was the immediate task not only of English but of international statesmen, and that we owed it to humanity to see whether such a thing could not be brought about. He wished to ask the Admiralty and the Government whether they were going to The Hague Conference to give it an earnest of their sincerity. The policy of the Government in going
106
to The Hague Conference ought to be to say—
" Here is England, not in her weakness but in her glory and her strength; and she is so strong as to be able to take the lead in a cause which is well within the domain of human reason."
He believed that such a policy would not jeopardise the Empire, but would leave it intact and relieve our industries of a great part of the incubus which weighed so heavily upon them through the waste of money on armaments. An hon. Member had said that if reductions were to be made on now construction for the Navy there would be a loss of wages. But he was sure that the Labour Members, with all their shortcomings, would never believe that they would increase wages, or the quality and amount of their employment, by spending money in the building of warships. It was true that the building of warships engaged a certain amount of labour, but did anybody believe that £1,000,000 spent in building a warship gave as large an amount of efficient labour with as £l,000,000 spent in the ordinary industries of the country? He endorsed the Government policy with all his heart, and did not believe that there was one of their supporters who would not back them up in it. At the proper time they would expect the Government to go further.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down expressed many excellent philanthropic sentiments with which I find myself in agreement; but I must contest his general argument; and, whether or not I shall again give him another of those half-hours of doubtful pleasure which I seem to have afforded him on other occasions, I hope to offer him at least some suggestions which may induce him to alter somewhat his attitude of congratulation towards the naval policy of the Government. It must be evident from the tenor of the speeches that have been delivered that there are two distinct currents of thought animating or influencing the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. There is, first, the question whether we do or do not require a larger Navy than the Navy which the Government propose to give us. That is what I

107
might call a scientific question. Its answer depends on the duties which we throw upon the Navy. The other question is how far we can inspire the nations of the world through The Hague Conference, or by other means, to dispense with the vast armaments, the burden of which now weighs so heavily upon their finances. I shall have something to say about each of these questions and of their relation to each other.
As to the first, the adequacy of the Fleet for the purposes for which it is required, I do not think that anyone who listened to the speech of the Secretary to the Admiralty will venture to say that he gave us any reasoned account of the grounds which had induced the Government to depart from the provisional naval policy which they announced in March last. I do not quarrel with the Government for having departed from that policy. They had, of course, the right to change it if they thought fit. But I do quarrel with them for having given us so short a notice of the change, and so brief an opportunity of discussing what every one admits is a very momentous decision. Of course, the Government cannot be rigidly bound to its Estimates. As I have said, some liberty of change is necessary; and I do not make that by itself a reproach. The ground of my criticism is that a change which without question does profoundly modify the relative strength of the British and foreign navies should be made without some adequate justification. Will anyone contend that the Admiralty have advanced a single argument upon that subject except that it had been made upon the authority of the Sea Lords? I think that when the Naval Lords are brought into the forefront of this controversy, as they have been brought by the Government this afternoon, we are treading on very dangerous ground; and, indeed, the Government themselves were aware that they were treading on very dangerous ground. From what fell from the Secretary to the Admiralty it is clear that he knew that it has never been the practice, and ought not to be the practice, in this House for a Government to shelter themselves in the complete manner in which the present Government have done behind the Naval Lords.
108
The Government have gone to the length of telling us that, not merely have the Naval Lords assented to the policy for which the Government are responsible, but that the Naval Lords pressed this policy on the Government.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: What I said was that the Naval Lords were the authors of the original new programme, and that they recommended the revision of that new programme to us.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman says that this policy was pressed upon them by the Naval Lords. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Recommended."] I cannot see the particular distinction between recommending a policy and pressing a policy; but I am content to say that this policy was recommended to the Government by the Naval Lords. I confess I do not much like this method of using the authority of the experts of the great spending departments. It may be necessary, but I think the Government themselves shrank a little from it.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I said so.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, but you did it all the same. We have not the advantage of cross-examining the Naval Lords. I wish we had. Remember that the Naval Lords who have recommended this new policy to the Government are, by admission, precisely the same Naval Lords who were in office when the original plan of the Government was put forward which involved twenty-five per cent. of increase in the expenditure on battleships and an even greater increase in other types of ships of war. They are the same men who were in office in March last when the Government announced their provisional naval programme. In the circumstances, I think that if their authority is to be quoted, and if we are not to have the opportunity of cross-examining them, at least we should be told the grounds on which they have changed their opinions. The Secretary to the Admiralty gave not the smallest hint or indication what changes in the circumstances of this country, in the building programmes of foreign

109
countries, in the magnitude of the interests we have to defend, and in our facilities for defending them, justify so great a change in the policy of the Naval Department. It was said in the course of the debate that we need not consider what other people are doing. That is a dictum which, I think, we all hold. But it must be remembered that our Fleet is essentially a defensive force; and, accordingly, its strength must depend upon the force that may be brought against it. Is there any indication that the force which may be brought against us is less now than it was in March last or in November last? If there is no such indication, then on what do the Naval Lords base their change of view? Of course, if the Government come down to this House and say that all their naval experts are of one mind in this matter, I admit that it is very difficult for us to hold another view. I quite acknowledge that. But I think, at the same time, that we should be told why the experts hold those opinions. The reductions in the expenditure on the Fleet recommended by the late Government did not militate in any sense against the efficiency of the Fleet. Indeed, we believed they left the Fleet stronger than it was before. But that is not the case with respect to the new policy of the present Government. That policy will leave the Fleet weaker. There is all the difference in the world between economies which leave the Fleet stronger and economies which leave the Fleet weaker; and there is as great a difference between expert advice given in one case for reasons which were stated to the world, and expert advice given in the present case of which we are kept in complete ignorance. Let me say a word now on the humanitarian question, with which, need I say, I have the profoundest sympathy? Has not the House noticed that the Government in their declarations as regards both the Army and the Navy make two different kinds of speeches according to the different class of opinion they wish to conciliate? When they are talking to those members on the other side of the House who are deeply interested in the efficiency of the Army and Navy they declare that the Army will be 50 per cent. stronger
110
after their reforms are carried out, and that the Navy, according to their expert advisers, is quite adequate for every purpose of defence which can be asked of it. Then they turn to another section of their followers, who are more interested in the diminution of expenditure than in the efficiency of the services, and who entertain the most sanguine hopes and expectations both of what can be done by The Hague Conference and what we can do to influence The Hague Conference. What is the language they hold to these gentlemen? They say that we must set an example, and to show that we have confidence in the pacific intentions of our neighbours, we must diminish expenditure upon our defensive armaments. But you cannot have it both ways. The hon. Gentleman opposite welcomes the | policy of the Government as a proof of good faith. He welcomes it because it would enable the Government to go to The Hague Conference and say, "Look at Great Britain; we no longer intend or desire to keep these great armaments." Yes, Sir, but I do not know whether The Hague Conference will be much influenced by that argument if they read all the speeches or the whole of any speech delivered by the Government. How do you prove your good faith by saying, "See, we have diminished Army expenditure, but our striking force is 50 per cent. stronger than before? "How will you produce this feeling of implicit belief in the pacific intentions of England when you say, "We have cut down the Navy Estimates, but the Naval Lords tell us we are fully equal to any two of you, even after the reductions?"the truth is, that if, which I hope is not the case, it be necessary for us to persuade foreign nations of our bona fides, and the simple benevolence of our attitude towards all mankind, you could not go to work in a worse manner than you are doing now. I know right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are perfectly honest and sincere, and that it is simply this unhappy habit of platform oratory which requires these double and perfectly inconsistent appeals. I hope I do not indulge in it. I am not aware of any case that can be adduced against me. It is sufficient for me to say that the idea that these innocent, naif, unsuspecting statesmen who are going to join

111
in The Hague Conference will be taken in by this noble appeal, is really absurd, ["Oh," and "Bad form"] What is bad form?
Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: I did not say 'bad form;" but I consider the expression "taken in" extremely objectionable.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then I withdraw it. But the gentlemen at The Hague Conference will undoubtedly know quite as much about your public declarations as anybody else. They will look at them in a more critical spirit than perhaps they ought to be looked at, and will say, "Here is the British Government talking about setting us a good example. They are making eloquent appeals to universal disarmament. They are saying they are in the very forefront of disarmament while they are assuring their countrymen in the same speeches, through the mouths of the same statesmen, that their Army is 50 per cent. stronger and their Fleet, even after the reductions, is equal to the two-Power standard." I do not see how these two kinds of appeal can be made, and I do not believe they will be, effective. In truth, I think this whole method of approaching the question is wrong. Our forces are defensive forces; our policy is a defensive policy. I do not think this country will ever indulge in a war of aggression, and therefore we have one duty, and one duty only, which is to make our naval and military forces as strong as, but no stronger than, are required to defend all our interests at home and abroad. That is the real scientific basis, or ought to be, of our armaments; and I cannot see that the Government have in the least degree tried, in the first place, to find out what those defensive necessities were, and then to square our defensive forces with the needs they have scientifically analysed. They have shown us no indication that they have carried out the policy of the two-Power standard, though they still profess it. I do not know what answer the Admiralty are going to give to the criticism of my hon. friend near me, who pointed out that this new type of battleship really changes the character of the two-Power standard. While at first sight you might
112
be inclined to say that the fact that we were the first to design and build them gives us a great advantage in one sense, I am afraid it may entail upon us an expenditure which otherwise you might have avoided. And for this reason. If the new type carries out the full expectations of its designers, a squadron of four of those battleships are almost invulnerable by any existing naval combination. Therefore, if we are really to keep pace with other nations as regards battleships, we shall have to build this new type at an equal rate to any two Powers. I am afraid if you look at what foreign nations are doing in the way of building these enormous ships, you will find that we are falling behind the two-Power standard in respect of ships of the "Dreadnought" type. And if these ships be what they conceive them to be, then you are endangering in a very serious degree, at this moment, by the inventive genius shown in designing those ships, the two-Power standard My hon. friend the Member for Norwood took comfort from the fact that we are able to build much faster than foreign nations; but have you any security that this greater rapidity of building is an inherent and perpetual advantage which this country is always going to have? I take it that it is a matter of organisation. I take it we have no advantage in material, no striking advantage in personnel, and that our machinery is in no sense in advance of the machinery to be found in the great dockyards of Germany or France, certainly of Germany. I do not believe—I wish I could—that we have this perpetual advantage in the matter of rapidity of building. There may have been a time when we had better material, when our dockyards were better equipped. That time is passed. No human being will pretend that our manufactories for great guns to-day are superior to the Krupp manufactory; that we can turn out great guns or armour quicker than they can. If the Germans think it worth their while, I do not think we can count upon building battleships quicker than they can. As soon as they see that it is economical and advantageous to build quickly, I think it will be found that they will build as quickly as we can.
I have laid before the committee the doubts that I am compelled to feel in

113
regard to the policy of the Government. I do not believe for an instant that the course they are pursuing is a course which will conduce to peace. I believe that peace is secured by making those countries that are in the nature of things defensive countries as strong as possible. We do not desire to interfere with the rights of other people, but I hope we are determined that our rights shall not be interfered with. Let any man look around the world at the present time and say whether all the symptoms point to a reign of universal peace. If anyone imagines that in Asia, Africa, and Europe all the symptoms may be read in a favourable light and sanguine spirit, I confess that I am unable to agree. One policy, and one policy alone, will ensure peace as far as this country is concerned—namely, the conviction entertained by every foreign statesman that it is dangerous to attack us. So long as that is the belief entertained on the Continent, so long as the policy of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is a policy consistent with the dignity and honour of the country, so long will he be able to maintain a European peace which in every respect is consistent with the interests of this country. But if once you allow, either on philanthropic or other grounds, your defensive forces to fall to such a point as that you are thought to be a possible prey to some ambitious nation, then I say that you are shaking the foundations of the peace of the world; and it is in the interests of peace I urge His Majesty's Government to put no pressure on their naval advisers to modify opinions at which they have deliberately arrived. I earnestly request them, whatever be the changes which they desire to introduce either in the Army or the Navy, not to make changes of a kind which will weaken the forces which undoubtedly in the past have conduced to peace and which will perform the same beneficent function, if properly used, in the future. I am therefore obliged to declare that, after the explanations of the Government as regards the new programme, so far it is wholly inadequate, and that the suspicions with which it has been naturally regarded have in no way been dissipated by the representative of the Admiralty.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I assure the right hon. Gentleman, and I think he will believe it, that we on this side of the House, and those who share our views in this matter, had no idea that we should shake the foundations of peace—peace on the one hand, and the British Empire on the other—by the dropping of a first-class ironclad out of the programme of the year. If it had that effect, we should not drop the first-class ironclad. The right hon. Gentleman divided the subject, very naturally and conveniently, into two parts. First of all, there was the question of the naval policy of the year and the relations of the naval advisers of the Government to the policy; and, in the second place, there was the larger and wider question of the prospect of a general gradual disarmament, and therefore of some improvement in the prospects of peace and goodwill among the nations. As to the relations of the Government to the technical advisers of the Board of Admiralty, I am glad to reassure the right hon. Gentleman entirely. It is not the first time that the programme of the year which has been approved by the technical naval advisers of a Government has been afterwards altered by that same Government. That is no extraordinary thing. Two years ago the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was the head dropped out of their programme one of four armoured cruisers and thirteen destroyers, and last year there was also an armoured cruiser dropped—that is to say, it was not ordered—and the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on that occasion forgot or omitted even to inform the House of the change. The right hon. Gentleman says that we proposed a certain shipbuilding policy to the House in March. No, sir, we guarded ourselves against doing so. We came into power after the naval policy of this year had been nominally fixed by our predecessors. We have never quite ascertained what was the reason of that extraordinary departure from ordinary procedure when the naval programme was furnished before the change of Government in December or before the general election. When, at all events, we came into office it was our duty then to take a calm and deliberate survey of the situation, and

115
for the purposes of the Estimates of this year we adopted the proposals of our predecessors. But my right hon. friend in introducing the Estimates said that we should review this question of the shipbuilding programme; and later in the session that we should say what our mind was on that subject. If anything has been upset it is not our proposals of building great ships, but the proposals of our predecessors born out of time.
Then what about the course taken in this matter by the Sea Lords? The Sea Lords have had no pressure put upon them in this matter. On the contrary, taking a further survey of the situation as it now presents itself to them, they have advised us that what we now propose is sufficient to maintain all the strength and preserve all the power that is required for the British Navy. Not only so, but they recommended this to us, and they have expressly asked that the House of Commons should be informed that it was their recommendation, in order I suppose, that they might get the credit for it. Now we hear put forward an extraordinary theory. When the Government is supposed to be going to reduce the Navy Estimates the Party newspapers are full of events that never occurred. The Sea Lords are on the point of resigning, or they have resigned; the First Lord of the Admiralty has tendered his resignation; every allusion that is made to the subject is couched in that tone; and then we are told that it is very improper to bring in the Naval Lords at all. But if they are to be brought in for the purposes of attack, surely it is perfectly right to bring them in for the purposes of defence? I think with my right hon. friend that the present situation is entirely abnormal and exceptional, because it has happened that the same Board is making different recommendations than were presumably made to the Government of last year. No one knows what pressure may have been brought on the Sea Lords last year. It may be, for all we know, that they are now able to find a happy way of escape out of the duress in which they were placed last year. Except in a case like this, where there is a change in the opinion of the same technical advisers, I am not in favour of adducing the authority of professional advisers either in this or in any other
116
case. It puts them in a false position. It leads to this very line of thought of which I have been speaking, where people try to discriminate between the political heads of a department and the more permanent and professional heads; and these are great mischiefs in the administration of the country. I think it ought not to be done except in abnormal cases, but this was an exceptional case, and I do not think that my right hon. friend would be justified in refusing to make public the statement which the Naval Lords wished him to make. Our opinion is that the Naval Lords are right, and when you talk of the two-Power standard, after all you cannot quite keep out of your mind who the two Powers are. When we have elaborate calculations made as to what France and Germany are building, is it really a very likely combination that France and Germany should be allied and should go to war with us? I do not object to the two-Power standard as a rough guide, but this is a two-Power standard of almost a preposterous kind. When we come to examine the details of that two-Power standard, we find that the figures of that combination do not justify any extraordinary capacity and speed in shipbuilding in this country. But we admit that there ought to be some progress made with these huge ships of our invention, and accordingly we propose that there should be three ships laid down. What will they accomplish for us Until 1909 we shall be the only Power that has one of the great "Dreadnought" class, said to be almost incapable of defeat. Until 1909 we shall have one and no other Power will have any; while in 1909 we shall have four, and other Powers will only have two. The right hon. Gentleman controverts the idea that we have any advantage in speedy building.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No necessary advantage.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We only deal with things as we find them. What Germany or France or Scandinavia or any other country may do in the way of rapid building in the next twenty years we cannot tell. We make our programmes in accordance with what we know; and as we know these countries,

117
neither France nor Germany, nor any other country can equal us in rate or cheapness of shipbuilding. And cheapness after all does come in, because it enables a larger number of these great vessels to be built for the same burden on the people. I do not know that I need say anything more regarding the action of the Naval Lords. We think it to be a most patriotic action. We think it most sensible and plucky of them to admit that they had rather over-estimated the necessities a few months ago, and they are content with a reduced programme. The right hon. Gentleman says that we are weakening the Fleet. How are we weakening the Fleet? That is the old idea that by piling one strength upon another strength you get a greater result. The man who has had an ample dinner, as much as he can digest, does not make himself stronger by going on eating dinners in order to dazzle other people. After all, this is one of the most vital elements of this branch of the question— the rivalry of grandeur in naval and military expenditure. It is not only the actual strength but, if I may use the word, it is the swagger as to having the largest, strongest, and most numerous fleet, or the biggest and most powerful army in the world. We dislike that sort of rivalry. The right hon. Gentleman said a thing which is very true. He said that possibly we made a mistake in laying down this one great "Dreadnought," because it has undoubtedly set the pace for other nations. By that action we deliberately encouraged other nations to go on in this unceasing rivalry. I daresay that the right hon. Gentleman was right in saying that we might have been better off in relative strength to-day if we had not built this vessel. But that is done. We take it as we find it; and we wish to maintain the strength that the naval men consider adequate for the discharge of all the duties that fall upon the Navy.
We have in our mind's eye, also, the question of general disarmament. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was very encouraging to The Hague Conference. It may be difficult to realise all the things that are attempted or thought of. But I would rather be one of those who try to realise them than one of those who run them down and point out nothing
118
but difficulties. Who imagines that the Powers going to The Hague Conference to deal with disarmament are to disarm themselves entirely and present themselves without defence among their neighbours? It is not so. We desire to stop this rivalry, and to set an example in stopping it—we who can do it, in regard to the Navy, with greater case than any other Power—in order that we may relieve to some extent the burden that presses upon the people of all countries. The right hon. Gentleman rather implied that we should wait for other people to set the example; and the late Civil Lord of the Admiralty said that we should call upon other nations to take the first step. It is to be an inverted Pool of Siloam. Instead of all the people rushing to be the first in the water, they are all to linger on the brink and urge their neighbours to go in. In my judgment we are the country above all others upon whom it is incumbent to show a willingness to check the pace with which these great armaments have been mounting up of late years, with respect to the Navy especially. No man here wishes the Navy to be weak for all the manifold duties which it has to perform, duties which do not fall upon any other country in the world. We are all as keen as anyone can be to maintain the efficiency of the Navy, but extravagance never procures efficiency. You get efficiency only when expenditure is kept within reasonable bounds. But on these grounds we hope that the Government, having the opportunity, will have the support of the House of Commons in setting a very reasonable and moderate example—but still a very obvious, decided, and considerable example—in the direction in which, we think, all the nations suffering from this burden of armaments would do well to follow. We shall not be intimidated by any fear of unpopularity. As a matter of fact, I believe it to be a popular policy; but, if it were not, I should follow it all the same. I am not one who ever talks of mandates. I never use the word, and I do not believe very much in the thing. But we made no secret of our desire to reduce military expenditure; we went to the country; and here we are. If we had not taken the steps that we have done, in regard both to the Army and the Navy, and

119
endeavoured to the best of our belief to show to the countries that we do not believe in reckless expenditure in this matter, but that at the same time we are anxious to maintain the necessary forces to defend our interests—if we had not done that, and if we did not now declare our intention of following that policy out, we should not be worthy to sit on this Bench.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that the time was too short for him to make a statement as to the dockyard administration; but he proposed to print as a Parliamentary Paper the substance of what he had to say and have it circulated amongst members immediately.
MR. JENKINSasked whether hon. Members would have an opportunity later on of saying something in regard to the proposal to build one of the battleships by private contract.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid the only opportunity, he believed, would be on the Appropriation Act.
SIR J. BAKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give Members representing dockyard towns the opportunity of an interview at the Admiralty on the statement made?
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Yes.
Vote agreed to.
2. £2,827,200, Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.—Matériel.
3. £8,588,400, Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.—Contract Work.
4. £2,986,000, Naval Armaments.
5. £351,500, Admiralty Office.
Resolutions to be reported.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DE-PARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1906–7.

  CLASS IV.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £200,000, be granted to His Majesty,
  120
  to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, for Grants towards Expenditure on Public Elementary Schools in England and Wales."
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question' "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Whiteley)—put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  TRADE DISPUTES BLLL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1.
  *MR. BOWLES,in moving to omit the words "contemplation or," said the purport of the Amendment was sufficiently clear in itself; its object was to narrow the scope of the clause. It would hardly be possible to consider the effect of this Amendment unless one considered the whole of the clause itself. The clause removed every remedy for certain classes of damage committed during trade disputes if they were done "In contemplation or furtherance" of a trade dispute. That being so, hon. Members would see that it was necessary to consider with some care the exact nature of the damage which was proposed to be left without remedy. This question involved directly the whole question of the law of conspiracy as applied to trade disputes, and that was a question which could only be properly dealt with by lawyers. Although at one time he committed the youthful indiscretion of being called to the Bar, he was not, and he hoped he never would be, in any real sense a lawyer. He believed he was right in saying that the law upon this matter at the present time was that for ordinary persons and in ordinary circumstances the law

  121
  recognised that an act which was perfectly harmless if done by one person, became altogether altered in its character and might be extremely formidable, in fact so formidable as to inflict provable legal damage if committed by many persons. The law provided for that kind of damage two remedies, the criminal action for conspiracy and the civil action. Until the year 1871 no difference was made by the legislature between a trade dispute and any other dispute. A man who suffered damage as the result of a conspiracy during a trade dispute had his remedy just the same as a man who suffered similar damage in any other kind of dispute. In the year 1871 an Act was passed which was amplified in 1875, the result of which was to take away criminal remedies for acts committed during trade disputes, so long as they would not have been indictable if committed by one person. Ever since the year 1875, trade disputes had been differentiated by the law from all other disputes, inasmuch as criminal action for conspiracy was then taken away. But the civil remedy remained, and it was that civil remedy and that right of civil action which it was now proposed by the clause before them to take away. The clause took away that right from any person who suffered damage done by an act in pursuance of an agreement or combination during or in contemplation of a trade dispute. It also took away from that person all remedy whatever in respect of the agreement or conspiracy. That was the proposal of this clause. What he desired to do was to narrow the scope of the clause to what seemed to him to be its proper function. He asked the Committee to consider the nature of the acts for which no remedy at all under any circumstances was to be allowed under this astonishing new arrangement. They were acts which by hypothesis were harmless if committed by one person, but nobody would deny that, although harmless when committed by one person, they might be harmful in the highest degree and produce intolerable wrong and injustice, if committed by many persons. And yet it was the essence of this clause that the act to be covered by the clause did produce legal and provable damage. It was the essence therefore of this pro-
  122
  posal that a man who had suffered legal undeniable damage which he could prove in a Court of Justice was to be left entirely without remedy. That was a very large demand, which, in view of all the traditions of the country, the House ought to view with considerable care, and he did think that it was important that they should consider whether the words which he moved to leave out did not extend the operation of the clause to an extent to which the House might not altogether be prepared to go. Now what was the kind of act for which this clause left no remedy? One might draw upon one's imagination, but there was no need to do so, because many cases existed similar to those which were contemplated by this clause. He would cite a fairly recent case decided in 1901, with which hon. Gentlemen were no doubt perfectly familiar. The case he alluded to was that of "Quinn v. Leathern."there lived just outside Belfast in the year 1895 a certain grazing butcher, named Leathern. [An HON MEMBER: That is ancient history.] He employed a foreman and a certain number of assistants, who were nonunion men. His business was to raise stock and sell it to his customers in Bel fast and the most important of his customers was a butcher named Munce, who employed union men in the town of Belfast. There was no dispute between Mr. Leathern and his men, or between Leathern and Munce. Everything was being carried on to the complete satisfaction of everybody concerned, and one would have thought that those two businesses might have been left to rest in peace. But it was quite obvious that if businesses were allowed to be conducted quietly, the more militant form of trade unionism came to an end. These two butchers, Mr. Leathern and Mr. Munce, conducted their business to the satisfaction of everybody concerned. Their workmen were satisfied and the general public were satisfied. But the representatives of the local trade union were not satisfied, and they put their heads together to see what could be done to put an end to this state of things. They made an agreement as contemplated by this clause, and as a result they committed an act contemplated by this clause. They wrote a letter to Mr. Leathern, and without

  123
  preamble or excuse or explanation, demanded in a most categorical way the instant dismissal by Mr. Leathern of his foreman and all his men.
  R. CLEMENT EDWARDS: The hon. Member has not stated the facts correctly.
  *MR. BOWLESsaid he had given these facts the best attention of which he was capable, and the hon. Member would find that he had not misstated them. The union demanded the instant dismissal of these men, and Mr. Leathern naturally asked upon what grounds. He said if the grounds were that they did not belong to the local trade union he was quite ready to pay their entrance fees into the union, and he was perfectly willing that they should enter the union. That proposal however, was rejected by the officials of the union, who said in the plainest possible terms that their object was to drive these men out of employment to walk the streets of Belfast for twelve months without any employment. That was intended as a punishment to them for not having joined the union. In other words, the object of the union was not to get these men to join the union but to see that they should be hounded about the streets without any work and reduce them to something which hon. Members below the gangway knew perfectly well amounted to starvation. Having made that intimation, the officials of the union repeated their demand for the instant dismissal of these men. That was a demand which certain employers might at once have acceded to. But Mr. Leatham was a man of a totally different character. He said he did not like the notion of men who had served him faithfully for many years being sent to starve in the streets, and for his part, he refused to dismiss them. Whereupon the union committed another act; for they induced Mr. Munce, by a threat to call out his men, to refuse to take Mr. Leathem's meat, which he was purchasing to the extent of £30 a week, and all this simply because Mr. Leathern had the courage to stand between his men, who were free labourers, and starvation and the union. Consequently, Mr. Leathern suffered a palpable and undeniable damage
  124
  of a very serious character. Those acts committed under those circumstances were acts which were precisely covered by the clause now before the Committee, because they were done in contemplation of a trade dispute. This was a trade dispute, not indeed between an employer and his workmen, such as was contemplated in the Act of 1875, but they were acts done in contemplation of a trade dispute between the union men and the non-union men of the district. And it was an act which, had it been done without any agreement or combination by one man acting singly, would not have been actionable for a moment. Therefore he thought it was a question worthy of grave consideration whether the Committee was prepared in cold blood and upon serious reflection to place a form of words upon the Statute book which would directly and expressly legalise acts of that description. He asked the Committee to adopt his suggestion with all the more confidence because he understood that the acts of which he had complained were repudiated by every trade union leader worthy of the name. He understood that hon. Gentlemen below the gangway shared the disgust which was felt at such acts, and repudiated them. But in spite of their repudiation and dislike of those acts, the fact remained that such acts were committed, and he could not for the life of him understand how hon. Gentlemen came down to this House and supported the Government in asking for a clause which would expressly legalise acts which everyone who followed him in this debate would repudiate and disavow. For his part, he agreed with a learned Judge who tried this case—he alluded to Lord Lindley—who said that a man might resist without difficulty the wrongful act of an individual but it was a very different thing when one man had to defend himself against a combination of men. An Act committed as the result of such a combination might be good or bad. But it was inevitably different in quality from the same act committed without such combination. And to enact, as this clause proposed to do, that such acts were the same if committed in contemplation of a trade dispute was to enact a plain absurdity. His object was to prevent that kind of thing, or at least, his point

  125
  was that it should be rigidly confined to times of industrial war, and not to times of peace. That was the object of this Amendment. In the course of a former debate upon this Bill, the hon. Member for South Glamorganshire referred to a system under which employers conspired together to prevent men whom they disliked from obtaining employment, and they kept a black list—a list of men whom the employers agreed together to refuse to employ. If that was true, he thought it was very bad, and he should be very glad, so far as he was able to co-operate with hon. Members below the gangway, to see what could be done to bring such a system to an end. But this clause made that state of things expressly legal, and he hoped working men generally would realise that the efforts of Labour Members in this House would, if successful, result in making such action by the employers definitely legal.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I submit, Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, that that argument has nothing whatever to do with this particular Amendment.
  *MR. BOWLES: My object is to show what would be the effect when the Bill becomes law, of leaving out the words which I have moved to omit from the clause.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member does seem to have argued very widely upon this Amendment. Of course, he is quite entitled to argue as to the effect of striking out the words in the Amendment, but the hon. Member appears to me to have gone far beyond that, and he has argued a good deal upon the question of combination. He must confine himself to the Ammendment.
  *MR. BOWLESsaid his object was to enable the Committee to consider whether the kind of acts contemplated by this clause were acts which ought to be possible, not only during, and in furtherance of a trade dispute, but also in contemplation of a trade dispute, because the term "contemplation" was exceedingly wide, and it might he very difficult for a pourt to come to a conclusion upon the Coint. The question was whether those
  126
  acts should be allowed in contemplation, as well as in furtherance of a trade dispute. They were told that this made no real change, and that it only settled in law what had been supposed to be the law for thirty years or more. They were also told that they ought to trust the trade union leaders in this matter. He was not going to say a word against those representatives of trade unionism who had the advantage of sitting in this House, nor against responsible trade union leaders generally, but he thought they ought to remember that trade union leaders after all, were like Cabinet Ministers, for they only led on terms. They only led so long as they could obtain a following, and in order to obtain a following, what might they not be forced to do? [Cries of "Oh" from the LABOUR Members.] Hon. Gentlemen below the gangway were always contemplating some trade dispute. [Cries of "No, no."] Well, he would come to that point in a moment. They might be, as Cabinet Ministers sometimes were, driven to a course of action against their own better judgment, into taking extreme courses, by wild followers behind them, and be forced in a few weeks' time to eat their own words.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. That question does not arise on the Amendment.
  *MR. BOWLESsaid he was endeavouring to show that the argument that they ought to trust trade union leaders to act reasonably in contemplation of trade disputes was a very difficult one to admit. What was the object of the words which he proposed to omit? They were directed, it seemed to him, not against the employers, nor were they designed to strengthen the hands of trade union leaders in respect of existing trade disputes, but they were plainly directed, and this was his objection to the words, against the independence of non-union labour. It was the non-union man who was the real enemy of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway. It should not be overlooked that the vast majority of the working people did not belong to trade unions, and did not believe in them, and, in fact, did not want to

  127
  belong to them. They were the people who were aimed at by the words of this clause, which he proposed to omit, and they would put it into the power of hon. Members below the gangway if they desired to do so, as long as they were contemplating a trade dispute, to make it impossible for any man to retain his independence in the matter of his own labour. Hon. Gentlemen below the gangway were always more or less contemplating a trade dispute. [Cries of "No."] He could prove the truth of his contention, because there were a number of quotations which he could make from hon. Members' speeches and writings which would bear out what he had said. The membership of trade unions in this country was diminishing. He believed the power of trade union leaders in this country was diminishing. They only depended upon their following, and liberty having failed, tyranny was now to be called in. In the phrase, "In contemplation of a trade dispute "hon. Members below the gangway were to be given power to divide the industries of this country into two great armed camps, armed to the teeth, and taught to believe that their interests were not identical, but opposite. Power was to be given under these words, because they contemplated a trade dispute, to ruin, if they desired to do so, any man who refused to be recruited into their ragged army. That was a power which he would not trust to any set of Ministers sitting on the Treasury Bench, still less would he trust it to hon. Members below the gangway. These words gave absolutely unlimited power to trade unions, to coerce free labourers into their ranks at any time and that was why he moved that they should be omitted. He would not like the clause even when the omission was made. But he thought that they ought at least to take care that no man was forced into the struggle between capital and labour against his will, and that those who wished to keep clear of that kind of pressure during times of industrial peace might be permitted to do so. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 9, to leave out the words ' contemplation or.'"—( Mr. Bowles.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  *THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON,said that the practical answer to the hon. Member's arguments was that it would be most difficult, even if it were possible, to draw a distinction between acts done in contemplation of, and acts done in furtherance of, a trade dispute. The hon. Member's arguments against what he had described as acts done in contemplation of trade disputes would almost be equally applicable to acts done after the dispute had begun. The desirability of inserting words of this kind was evidently considered by the late Government, with the result that these very words were inserted in the Bill which passed through this House. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would not press his Amendment to a division.
  SIR E. CARSONthought he ought to state to the Committee his view as a lawyer in reference to these words. It was quite true that the House, by a previous Act, had prohibited an indictment against a workman for conspiracy to do an act which would not be indictable if it were done by a single individual. That was the state of the criminal law. It was quite true, as the Attorney-General had said, that within the section of the Act of 1875 these words "In contemplation of" were present. What he should like to point out, however, was that there was a very great distinction, and he thought the Attorney-General would see it at once, between a criminal act and a civil remedy. In the case of the criminal act they could not carry on a trade dispute without entering into some sort of an agreement in contemplation of or before the dispute came on. He thought they ought to do this just as well when the dispute was in contemplation as while it was in progress. The conspiracy, such as it was, would take place before the trade dispute was actually entered into. What a man was indicted for, and what they used to indict him for, was conspiracy. He need not have done any act under it, and nothing need have taken place at all in the way of a trade dispute, prior to the Act of 1875. But,

  129
  when they came to the civil action it was entirely different. They could not bring a civil action against any person for entering into a dispute, and people might conspire as much as they liked so long as they did nothing in pursuance of it. They had to prove in a civil action not merely conspiracy, but legal damage as a consequence of it. The reason why he objected to these words remaining in the section was that the House would then be laying down that persons might inflict legal damage before a trade dispute had arisen at all. He thought that was a fatal policy. He quite agreed that once a trade dispute came on, there might be reasons of policy, on either one side or the other, why they should limit liability, but how far it should be limited was a question for the Committee. He thought, however, that to lay down that damage might be committed in pursuance of a conspiracy, and before the dispute actually came on, was going a long way to prevent a settlement of that dispute before it reached an acute form. He submitted to the Committee that having regard to this distinction, they ought not slavishly to follow the wording of the Act of 1875, unless in relation to criminal matters, because the gist of the offence in the two cases was absolutely different. In the case of most criminal matters, it was a conspiracy, but in the case of the civil remedy, it was the damage done, and he suggested to the Commitee that they ought not to lay down that legal damage should be without a remedy where it was done before a trade dispute came on, and merely in contemplation of it.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that the 'Commission appointed by the late Government to deal with this question of trade disputes distinctly recommended the words contained in this clause. They would be found on page 17 of the Report which was signed by three of the Commissioners, and on page 24 in the Memorandum made by four of the Commissioners. He also wished to point out that these very words passed the Standing Committee last year, and they were inserted upon a division in another clause dealing with peaceful picketing. Upon that occasion eleven members of the Unionist Party voted in favour of these words, and eleven against.
  SIR E. CARSON: But that clause was entirely different from this one. This was a recommendation to enact that an agreement or Combination should not be the ground of a civil action in contemplation of a trade dispute, unless it was indictable as a conspiracy. His point was in reference to the agreement and conspiracy and the malicious damage done, which was entirely different and ought not to be allowed in contemplation of a trade dispute. As regarded the Report of this Committee, the right hon. Gentleman must be perfectly well aware that the one matter which the Committee reported most strongly against was the Government proposal in regard to Clause 4. It was all very well to pick out parts in the Report of the Commission, and say that they were in favour of so and so, but they must take the Report as a whole; and they could not whittle away one right and then sweep away other rights, and in that way say that they were carrying out the Report of the Commission. T-hey must take the Report of the Commission as a whole, or else their recommendations were of no value whatever.
  *MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid he could not very well allow the remarks of the hon. Member for Norwood to pass without challenge from that side of the House. [An HON. MEMBER: He is not worth it.] Then he was a very poor Member of this House if his remarks were not worth some consideration from the Labour Members. He had described trade unionists as a ragged army. He ventured to say, with all due respect to the hon. Member for Norwood, that when he had gained a little more experience of trade unionism he would probably be like a good many other employers of labour in this House. he would begin to recognise that trade unions were valuable institutions, and that it was a good thing for the workmen to be combined together in order that to settle their differences in a reasonable and intelligent manner. The hon. Member for Norwood had complained of union men compelling non-unionists to join a trade union. If he was correctly informed, the hon. Member himself had recently become an employer of labour by owning ships.

  131
  Only a short time ago a vessel in which the hon. Member was interested engaged a crew, and one of the conditions attached to the employment of those men was that they were to join a combination. It was not, however, a workmen's organisation which they were called upon to join, but it was an organisation known as the "Shipping Federation, Ltd." If those men had not become members of that organisation, then they could not have been employed upon the hon. Member's vessel.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. Unless the hon. Member can show that this particular federation was formed in contemplation of a trade dispute, he is not in order in discussing that point.
  *MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Certainly it is in contemplation of a trade dispute, because it is well known that this particular organisation exists for the purpose of destroying trade unions.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: But that is not the question. An organisation to destroy trade unions is not in contemplation of a trade dispute as suggested in this clause.
  *MR. HAVELOCK WILSONthought it was, and as the hon. Member for Norwood had made so much out of the tyrannical conduct of trade unions in compelling men against their will to join something that they did not believe in, it was only right that he should be allowed to call attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Norwood himself was not altogether innocent in these matters; therefore he ought to be the last man to cast stones at trade unionists when he himself had been doing a little in that direction.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYhoped his hon. friend would press his Amendment. Although not a lawyer, he thought the words "In contemplation "seemed liable to cause very serious injury not only to employers but also to trade unionists. He regretted the introduction of questions as to whether trade unions were good or bad things, or whether federations of employers were good or bad, and he intended to limit his remarks to what seemed to
  132
  him as a layman as likely to take place under the provisions of this clause. The hon. and learned Attorney-General said, and this was the only argument he advanced against the omission of these words, that it would be difficult to decide when a trade dispute commenced. That might or might not be so, but still as a layman he should have thought that a trade dispute commenced when the men were called out by the union or when the masters locked' the men out. [LABOUR Cries of "No, No."] Hon. Members below the Gangway differed from him, but at any rate that was his opinion, and if hon. Members could' show him that he was wrong he would be happy to listen to them, and if they convinced him on that point he would not vote for the Amendment which had been. I moved by his hon. friend. If he was right upon this point he thought the Attorney-General would admit that it would be very simple to find out when a trade dispute commenced. In that case, those words covered such an enormous ground that it would be worth while to leave them out in order to safeguard the interests of all parties. But supposing an act which up to the present time had been illegal was done, if this clause was in force it would be possible for the persons doing that illegal act, whether masters or men, to declare that it was done in contemplation of a trade dispute. What had the Attorney-General adduced to prove that it was not done in contemplation of a trade dispute? The mere word of the master or of the members of the trade union or their officials, that the act was done in contemplation of a trade dispute would, under this clause, take away the effect of their wrongdoing. He would not go into the arguments which his hon. friends had adduced, because he thought that a good many of them were applicable more to the clause as a whole than to this Amendment, and as he had a Motion down on the Paper to omit the clause he would reserve any further remarks for that occasion. He thought, however, that when the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, said that the Royal Commission recommended this and that it ought to be remembered that this was the House of Commons and not the Royal Commission; and although he looked with

  133
  great respect upon the findings of Royal Commissions, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin that if the verdict of the Royal Commission was to be taken as something which was unanswerable then they must take it as a whole. If the Government would accept the findings of the Royal Commission as a whole he did not suppose there would be much objection. With regard to the statement of the Labour Members in regard to the late Government's action upon this question, he would like to say that many Members of the Opposition voted against this clause, and with regard to those who voted for it he did not know whether they did so in contemplation of an approaching election or whether that had anything to do with the matter.
  MR. PAULpointed out that an act done in contemplation of a trade dispute must be done either in futherance or hindrance of it or without any reference to it. If the act was done in hindrance or without reference to it it was clear that it did not come within the scope of the Bill.
  MR. HILLSconsidered that this Amendment was entirely unnecessary. At any rate it was incumbent upon those who desired to cut down the clause in this way, to show that the clause as a whole was wrong. He reminded the Committee that other opportunities would arise for discussing the clause as a whole, but as it did not change but tended to clarify the law upon this point he intended to vote against the Amendment.
  *MR. PARKESsaid that in his opinion the words "In contemplation or" had not the same meaning in the present Bill as in the Bill which had gone before it. He should like at once to dissociate himself from any remark made by the Member for Norwood with regard to trade unionists, and he hoped that the debate would be conducted without acrimony. The Attorney-General
  had said something with regard to the words "furtherance" and "contemplation."the word "furtherance" would in his opinion include '' contemplation." and the Attorney-General himself seemed-to indicate that in his remarks. He felt sure that all working men would desire that the area of dispute should be kept as small as possible. They wanted to limit trade disputes as far as possible, and if the words "in contemplation or" could be left out without injuring the Bill or making it invalid, and without injuring the main object of the Bill, he thought it would be a very good thing. There was no doubt that to the ordinary mind the words "In contemplation or" were not of a. character which was well understood. He therefore appealed to the Attorney-General to agree to the omission of the words "In contemplation or" if he could do so consistently with the object of the Bill.
  MR. PIKE PEASEdesired to ask if "In contemplation or" might be taken to be included in the word "furtherance."
  *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid his opinion was that both words were required, for this reason, that they might have a trade dispute which either had arisen or was on the point of arising. Therefore he thought it was necessary to include words which would cover that which was done "In contemplation" or arranging of a trade dispute and that which was done after the dispute had arisen.
  MR. BOWLESsaid he did not desire under the circumstances to force this Amendment to a division. In order to save the time of the Committee he asked, leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Leave to withdraw refused.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 319; Noes, 48. (Division List No. 279.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William(Cork,N.E.)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Alden, Percy

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Agnew, George William

  Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Allen, Charles P (Stroud)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Asquith,Rt.Hn.HerbertHenry

  Duckworth, James

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Duffy, William J.

  Kelley, George D.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Baker, JosephA.(Finsbury, E.)

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark,Govan

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dunne, MajorE.Martin(Walsall

  Lambert, George

  Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somerset

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Lambton, Hon.FrederickWm.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lamont, Norman

  Barnard, E. B.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Law, Hugh A.(Donegal, W.)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Elibank, Master of

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lever, A. Levy(Essex,Harwich

  Beale, W. P.

  Essex, R. W.

  Levy, Maurice

  Beauchamp, E.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Beaumont,Hubert(Eastbourne

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lough, Thomas

  Bell, Richard

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lundon, W.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lupton, Arnold

  Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt

  Findlay, Alexander

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Maclean, Donald

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S)

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal,E.

  Boland, John

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Callum, John M.

  Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire,N.E.

  Gardner, Col. Alan(Hereford,S.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  M'Kean, John

  Brace, William

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Killop, W.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Ginnell, L.

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Brigg, John

  Gladstone, RtHn. HerbertJohn

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

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Maddison, Frederick

  Brooke, Stopford

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Mallet, Charles E.

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

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn)

  Gulland, John W

  Marnham, F. J.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Massie, J.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hall, Frederick

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Halpin, J.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Cairns, Thomas

  Hammond, John

  Mond, A.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Montagu, E. S.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hardie, J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Causton,Rt. Hn. RichardKnight

  Harrington, Timothy

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morse, L. L.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Murnaghan, George

  Clough, W.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Murhpy, John

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Murray, James

  Coats, Sir T. Glen(Renfrew,W.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Myer, Horatio

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Hills, J. W.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Norman, Henry

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hodge, John

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

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

  Hogan, Michael

  Nuttall, Harry

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Cox, Harold

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Crean, Eugene

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Crooks, William

  Jackson, R. S.

  O'Dowd, John

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Grad, J.

  Cullinan, J.

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N

  Delany, William

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  O'Malley, William

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh,S.)

  Jones,SirD.Brynmor(Swansea)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Partington, Oswald

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Paul, Herbert

  136

  137

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Seddon, J.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Shackleton, David James

  Wallace, Robert

  Philipps, Col. Iver (S'thampton

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

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

  Walters, John Tudor

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Ward, W. Dudley(Southamptn

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

  Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim,S.)

  Wardle, George J.

  Radford, G. H.

  Snowden, P.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Weir, James Galloway

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

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Richardson, A.

  Steadman, W. C.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'd

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Summerbell, T.

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

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Wilson, J.H. (Middlesbrough)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Rowlands, J.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton,

  Runciman, Walter

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

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Huddersf'd

  Russell, T. W.

  Thorne, William

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Toulmin, George

  TELLERS FOE THE AYES—Mr.

  Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

  Ure, Alexander

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Sears, J. E.

  Verney, F. W.

  Pease.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Vivian, Henry

  NOES.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fell, Arthur

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fletcher, J. S:

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beach, Hn. Michael HughHicks

  Haddock, George R.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Bridgeman, V. Clive

  Hervey, F.W.F.(BuryS.Edm'ds

  Starkey, John R.

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. H. M.

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'd Univ.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lockwood, Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.A.R.

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Long, Rt.Hn.Walter (Dublin,S.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Lord Robert Cecil and Mr.

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Bowles.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  *MR. CLAVELL SALTERsaid he wished to insert after the word "dispute"the words "between employers and workmen." He thought it possible that on consideration all parts of the Committee, including the leaders of the Independent Labour Party, would be disposed to think the words he proposed to insert were necessary. If this Bill was ever to become part of the law and to be operative there would have to be some thing to define what a trade dispute was. It contained no definition clause in regard to trade disputes, and in
  138
  the absence of a definition clause he asked the Committee to say that it was necessary to define what a trade dispute really was. This was a Bill that would, rightly or wrongly, license conspiracy; it would license interference with businesses and with a man's right to work when and where he pleased. Having regard to the great importance of the change which this Bill would make in the law and the great number of people who would be affected by it, he considered that it was desirable to define the position if it could be done.

  139
  Wherever this Bill applied it would deprive those who came under its operation of many of their rights and that personal freedom and immunity from interference which had hitherto been considered to be of great importance. That would be generally agreed. Everybody had assumed that "trade disputes "In this Bill would be limited as he proposed to limit it by this Amendment, but these changes in the law had nothing to do with trade unions. Trade unions were not mentioned in the first part, which had nothing to do with employers or with the relations between employers and their workmen. The proposed changes were not restricted to those who would be parties to the dispute. They were not so restricted as regards the attackers or the attacked. As soon as they brought themselves within the operation of this Bill by saying they were furthering or contemplating a trade dispute they would stand in a different position from the rest of their fellow subjects as to what they might or might not do.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member appeared to be discussing the clause. He must confine his observations to the Amendment.
  *MR. CLAVELL SALTERsaid he had said all he intended to say on that point. What was a trade dispute? If he had a difference with his butcher because he said that his bill was not paid and threatened to take proceedings, that was a trade dispute. [" Oh, oh."] Yes, that was a matter which had to be faced. These questions would soon come up if the Bill passed into law. Suppose a dispute arose between members of a trade who formed rings to exclude a member or to cause injury to another branch of trade. Nobody could deny that that would be a trade dispute. It did not affect trade unions and workpeople in any sort of way, but nobody would deny that it was a trade dispute. A dispute between two railway companies was a trade dispute, and under this Bill they would be able to picket each other's stations to any extent and would be allowed to do anything they liked to impair the trade of each other and injure other people. A trade dispute was an evil which in itself might injure and
  140
  cause suffering to persons who were not parties to the dispute. His object in moving this Amendment was to define what a trade dispute was in the contemplation of this Bill. It must be defined. As the Committee knew, if this clause passed it would find a place in the Conspiracy and Property Protection Act of 1875 and he was appealing to the Committee to make a workmanlike job of it. If it was passed into law as it stood without the change he desired to make, the judge who had to construe this section would be bound to construe it in a wider sense than as a dispute between employers and workmen. It would be impossible for this clause to be so limited if the words proposed were not inserted. He claimed the support of the hon. and learned Attorney-General when he said that in making any addition to an Act of Parliament they must follow the words of the Act. He did not think any Member of the Committee could allege any particular reason for not making the limitation he suggested, and he asserted that if they did not make this limitation they would do enormous harm to great masses of people in the country who had no interest in these disputes. All he asked was that they should assimilate the law of civil and criminal responsibility. He moved.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 10, after the word ' dispute,' to insert the words ' between employers and workinen.'"—(Mr. Salter.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *SIR JOHN WALTONthought there was some point in the argument of the hon. and learned Member when he pointed out that there should be some definition of the words "trade disputes," and he would consider that point, and endeavour to find a definition. But this Amendment went a great deal further. The hon. and learned Gentleman had pointed out that these words appeared in the Act of 1875. In that Act they had had a judicial construction placed upon them which if it were extended to this clause would greatly limit the operation of the clause. The words "disputes between employers and workmen" had been held to

  141
  mean a dispute between an employer and his workmen, and that would limit the operation of this clause to what were called primary strikes which were strikes between one employer and his workmen. The clause would have no operation whatever in what were termed secondary strikes which were due not to a grievance between an employer and his workmen, but were due to men abstaining from work in sympathy with other workmen who for some cause had struck. The principle raised by the Amendment was a very wide one, because the whole policy of this Bill was founded on the established right of workmen for any reason which they in their judgment thought sufficient to abstain from work. They had a right to abstain from work if they had a grievance; or because they objected to some action on the part of their employer in refusing to support the action of the men. His hon. and learned friend proposed by his Amendment that this clause should be limited in its operation to disputes between an employer and his workmen, and that being so the workmen who abstained from work out of sympathy with their fellows in the employment of others would not come under the operation of the clause. But if a number of men employed by an employer struck work and that employer declined to meet the case of the union, the men of that union employed by other employers had a perfect right to say that they we aid abstain from working unless the terms of the union were conceded. His hon. friend had called attention to the very important passage in the Report of the Royal Commission as to their reason for omitting after the words "trade dispute"the words "between employers and workmen."In that passage the Royal Commission reported that it was impossible to draw a distinction between a primary and secondary strike.
  SIR B. CARSONsaid the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman hardly bore out his contention, because if he looked again at the report he would see that what the Commission recommended was that the criminal law laid down by the Act of 1875 should be amended. He thought
  142
  the Commission were right. The one thing this Bill did not propose to do was to amend the criminal law. The Committee were not here dealing with the case of civil liability at all. He agreed with every word the Attorney-General said with reference to sympathetic strikes in relation to the criminal law, and he really did not think the question would arise in reference to a small action. By eliminating the words with regard to civil liabilities they would be able to prosecute a man for something for which they could not bring a civil action against him. That was a very strange result. He should have thought that the real thing they wanted to do by this Act was to amend the criminal law as suggested by the Commission. What the House would have liked to have heard from the Attorney-General was what he meant by a trade dispute, and how far it went. Did it go far beyond the questions between workmen and employers, whether they took it as a primary, secondary or sympathetic strike? If it did, he thought the Attorney-General ought to have told the Committee whether he meant it to go as far as employers, merchants, dealers, or traders wishing, for instance, to make a ring and run up prices. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman mean that in those cases they were to employ any of the men allowed by this Bill for the purpose of carrying that out?
  MR. RUFUS ISAACS: They can do it now.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid they might be able to do it in certain circumstances, but it entirely depended on the methods they employed. But he understood that the Attorney-General did not mean that. At any rate, trade disputes ought to be denned, and he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman had underaken to put in a definition.
  *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid it was pretty clear and perfectly understood that the term "trade dispute," related mainly if not solely to disputes arising from t le exercise by trade unions of their functions,
  SIR E. CARSONsaid it might be that they all knew what they meant to convey,

  143
  but the matter had to be stated in words which would bear out that meaning in law. Might he point out another difficulty, namely, that this Act might be cited as the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, and the Trade Union Acts, 1871 and 1876, and together as the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1906. What would be the effect of that? Would they read '" trade dispute "as something different in each of those Acts, or would they read it as having one meaning as regarded them all. If so, what was to be that meaning? The matter certainly required looking into and clearing up, and he earnestly hoped the Attorney-General would not leave the words as they stood, in the hope that the Courts would thoroughly understand what the House of Commons intended.
  MR. LYTTELTON (St. George's,said that there ought to be some more exact definition of "trade dispute." He claimed some right to speak on this matter, because some years ago he wrote a pamphlet on the subject of trade disputes, which for a long time slept, until a discussion arose three or four years ago, when he believed he was claimed by the trade unions as an ally and as having written to the best of his ability in order to secure them equality of play with the federation of employers. Therefore, he trusted that from anything he might say now it would not be considered that he had in any way altered his opinion as to perfect equality between the federation of employers and the trade unions. He asked both sides of the Committee to consider whether they were really aware of the very wide scope of this clause. In its present form it would enable the utmost tyranny to be used by a combination of employers against a competitor, or by trade unions against workmen who did not belong to a union. There was a remedy for small employers against combinations. There ought to be remedies when measures were taken by a powerful trade union to coerce the freedom of those outside who did not wish to belong to the union. Did hon. Members below the gangway desire legislation giving them privileges and immunities in cases where there was no question of a strike?, He appealed
  144
  to them to say why they should be absolved from many acts which would otherwise be illegal. He thought the Committee ought to learn from the real authors of the Bill what their intention was in regard to this matter. Did the Leaders of the Labour Party desire when a conflict arose between great rings of employers, that those employers should have the privileges of this Act and the immunities granted by this Act in order to assist them in fighting to crush out competition among themselves?
  MR. LAMBTONthought there ought to be some definition of a trade dispute. It was no use simply replying that they were laying down words that had been inserted in an Act already in existence. Obviously, it was necessary that the Attorney-General should give a definition in the Act itself of the term "trade disputes."
  *MR. RUFUS ISAACSsaid in answer to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University, it appeared to him that the first thing the Committee had to do was to make up its mind what was intended, and then see that the words used would carry out that intention. There had been considerable discussion upon this matter, and some forcible observations had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, with regard to the possible operation of this Bill in reference to rings and trusts and organisations of that character. As he understood the Bill, there was no such intention entertained by its framers. No one had contemplated that the trade dispute referred to should be a trade dispute of the character known as trade competition. They knew that the law on this subject had been clear since the Mogul case, and in any event it was not necessary to have any controversy as to what the law was in relation to that question, because it was not intended that this Bill should in any way change the law applicable to this subject. After what had fallen from the learned Attorney-General, it seemed to him quite unnecessary that they

  145
  should discuss this point at all, because the Attorney-General had said that he would consider some words to prevent the application of this section to that class of competition. Therefore, he thought that it would be better if those who had raised this point would agree to leave the consideration of the question for the present and deal with it when the limiting words which had been promised were brought up on the Report stage, if the words now in the clause were not considered sufficiently strong. The real question was, did they intend that the Bill should be so drafted and so worked as to protect those who had come out in a secondary or sympathetic strike. That was the real question. The limiting words introduced under the Amendment would have the effect, particularly when read in conjunction with such observations as had been made in the case of "Quinn v. Leathern," of limiting the operation of this clause to a dispute between an employer and his workmen. If there was no dispute between an employer and his workmen and the men had gone out on strike in sympathy with the workmen of other employers, in order to ameliorate the condition of those engaged in a particular trade, that would constitute a sympathetic strike, and if they did not apply this clause to sympathetic strikes, they would be taking away one of the main advantages of the Bill. They ought to devote their attention to ascertaining whether these words amounted to preventing the operation of this clause to secondary strikes. His right hon. friend the Member for the University of Dublin had told them that under the Act of 1875, from what had been stated in the case of "Quinn v. Leathern,"the words "employer and workmen," would be understood and defined by Judges as meaning an employer and his workmen, and therefore it was understood that if there was a prosecution under the Act of 1875 against those who had come out under a sympathetic or secondary strike, they would not be protected from a criminal prosecution by virtue of the Act of 1875. The Bill made this difference, that it omitted the words "employer and work-
  146
  men" because of the dangerous meaning; which had been given to those words.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid it was quite true that they left out those words, but the section they were discussing did not mean the criminal law, but merely the civil law.
  *MR. RUFUS ISAACSsaid he agreed entirely, but the right hon. Gentleman's observations were strong arguments in favour of having the clause as they had now got it. If the criminal law was to be interpreted as limiting the immunity to men who struck because of a dispute between them and their employer, it was high time that it was amended. He thought they were in complete agreement that this law ought not to operate so as to make those who took part in a sympathetic strike liable to a criminal prosecution. They were seeking to assimilate the civil law to the criminal law, and if his right hon. friend said he did not desire that there should be the limitation in the criminal law upon those words which the Law Lords had indicated might be placed upon them, it must follow if they were seeking to bring the civil law into harmony with the criminal law of conspiracy they must equally apply the same reasoning to the civil law. He did not expect that his right hon. and learned friend would agree with that, because he had already stated that he was opposed to extending the immunity from prosecution under the criminal law to immunity from any action under the civil law. He quite understood that that was so, but it was on this point that they were in absolute disagreement, and his view was that they should place the civil law upon the same footing as the criminal law in regard to conspiracy. That was to say, that the immunity in reference to conspiracy should be the same under the criminal as under the civil law. If they were right in that view, it must follow from what had been said that they were consistent, and justified in the contention, that they must leave out the words which were sought to be introduced and which would have a limiting effect. Speaking with some little experience and knowledge of the difficulties

  147
  which arose, he thought it was very necessary that they should leave out those words; if they inserted the Amendment the effect would he that they would cut away a very considerable portion of the protection intended to be given to the trade unions by virtue of the Bill. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee would not consider this Amendment favourably, but would reject it by a large majority.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid the lion, and learned Gentleman opposite when he rose made a statement with which he entirely agreed, to the effect that their first duty was to find out what they wanted, and then try to carry it out. He thought the hon. Member was going to give them some light upon the questions put by his right hon. friend the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square. He did, at any rate, deal with one of them, and stated that in his judgment this Bill ought not to cover trade combinations, and he quite agreed with that. The definition of the Attorney-General, if he gave one, he was sure would cover such cases as that. His right hon. friend put another case equally pertinent to which no answer had been given. He asked the Attorney-General now to give an answer to that question. Did he mean the term "trade dispute "To include such a case as that which had been cited? Would it include a case where, although no strike was going on at all, a trade union nevertheless desired to make all the employees in a particular works members of the union, and drive out all non-union men? Did the Attorney - General mean this Bill to give immunity against individual action in such cases as that? The answer to that question would decide his vote. If the hon. and learned Gentleman said that he was going to define "trade dispute "In such a way that trade disputes under this Bill would not give to those who were engaged in them special privileges to tyrannise over other workers, then he would not vote for the Amendment.
  *SIR JOHN WALTON: I am surprised at this Question being asked it is so elementary.
  MR. BONAE LAWsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman had not understood his point at all. He admitted that workers had a right to strike, but what he asked was this: Did he mean that they were to have immunity under this to perform acts which would be illegal Bill on the part of anybody else in order to drive out non-union men?
  *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid trade unionists had a right to say that they would not work with non-union men, and if they said so not in units, but collectively, they rendered themselves liable to no action. The test in every case was whether the act which was done collectively would, if it were done by a single person, be a tortious act. If a single man had a right to say that he would not work with non-union men, twenty, fifty, or 100 men had collectively the right to say the same thing.
  MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsaid there was another important matter which would happen if the Amendment were carried. Some of the most serious disputes in this country had been disputes between one branch of labour and another branch of labour over what were called demarcations of work. If this Amendment were carried limiting trade disputes merely to those between employers and their workmen, trade union workmen would be placed under disadvantages in a strike of that sort as compared with those who were striking in connection with some difference with the employers. It had been said by the right hon. and learned Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, that this clause placed union men in a privileged position because it gave them an immunity from the law which was not enjoyed by any other class. That statement was not correct, and he challenged the right hon. and learned Member to point to a single case, apart from those to which recent decisions in connection with trade disputes related, where other members of the community had been found guilty in a civil action of conspiracy in respect of an act which was not conspiracy if done by single individuals. This clause sought not to place union men in a privileged position, not to give them immunity as against

  149
  other classes of the community, but to place them in precisely the position occupied by other classes of the community as determined in such cases as the Mogul shipping case. He thought it would be a pity if it went forth that they were supporting a clause giving immunity when they were simply seeking to remove an anomaly in relation to trade unions.
  *MR. CLAVELL SALTERsaid he wanted to say one word more. It was said that the workmen were not protected from civil action in the case of a sympathetic strike. He understood that a sympathetic striker was a man who went out from his work, not because he had any difference with his employer, but because he desired to assist another. That was not a dispute between the employer and his workman, but the act was done "' in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute between employers and workmen." If this clause was amended as he proposed the benefit of it would go to all those who acted in furtherance of a trade dispute between employers and workmen. It appeared to him that the sympathetic striker would be acting in furtherance of such a dispute.
  MR. HILLSasked whether the Attorney-General would promise to introduce a
  definition of "trade dispute." It was a matter of extreme importance, and it should be clearly defined what a trade dispute was. He did think that they ought to know.
  *SIR JOHN WALTON: I feel the importance of the point raised, and I will consider favourably the introduction of some words to meet the difficulty. I will also consider the introduction of some words which will amend Section 3 of the Act of 1875, which would create a variation between the civil and the criminal law in regard to conspiracy. But I cannot pledge myself absolutey.
  SIR E. CARSON: Am I to assume it any definition which the Attorney-General makes will not exclude from the Bill the case of unionists wishing to coerce non-unionists? If this Bill is to give liberty to coerce non-unionists, I hope my hon. friend will divide on the Amendment.
  *SIR JOHN WALTON: I may undertake to define "trade dispute," but not general principles.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes 42; Noes 326. (Division List No. 280.)

  AYES.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick P

  Banbury, Sir FrederickGeorge

  Haddock, George R.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield,Ecclesall

  Barrie, H.T.(Londonderry,N.)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Beach, Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

  Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hervey,F W.F(BuryS.Edm'ds

  Starkey, John R.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Talbot, Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUniv.

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn.VictorC.W.

  Long,Rt.Hn.Walter(DoblinS.

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Nicholson,Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Viscount Valentia and Mr.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Nield, Herbert

  Forster.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Fell, Arthur

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Alden, Percy

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Asquith,Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Agnew, George William

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Barlow, JohnEmmott(S'merseset

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Joyce, Michael

  Barnard, E. B.

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Gov'n

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall

  Kelley, George D.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Bell, Richard

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Belloc,Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Essex, R. W.

  Lambert, George

  Benn, SirJ.Williams(Devonp'rt

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lambton,Hn.Fredk. William

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

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lamont, Norman

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Layland Barratt, Francis

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lever, A.Levy (Essex,Harwich

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon

  Ffrench, Peter

  Levy, Maurice

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David.

  Boland, John

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lough, Thomas

  Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N.E.

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Lundon, W.

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Brace, William

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Gardner,Col. Alan(Hereford,S.

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

  Brigg, John

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Gill, A. H.

  MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal,E.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Ginnell, L.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Gladstone,Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

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

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Kean, John

  Bryce, J.A. (InvernessBurghs)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Gooch, George Peabody

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Maddison, Frederick

  Buxton, Rt.Hn. SydneyCharles

  Gulland, John W.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

  Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Hall, Frederick

  Marnham, F. J.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Halpin, J.

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

  Hammond, John

  Massie, J.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Hardie,J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

  Meagher, Michael

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R.

  Harrington, Timothy

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Mond, A.

  Claney, John Joseph

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Clough, W.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Morse, L. L.

  Coats, Sir T.Glen(Renfrew, W.)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Murnaghan, George

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham,

  Murray, James

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Myer, Horatio

  Cooper, G. J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholson,Charles N.(Doncast'r

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hills, J. W.

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Norman, Henry

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hodge, John

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hogan, Michael

  Nuttall, Harry

  Cox, Harold

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  O'Brien,Kendal (TipperaryMid

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Connor,James (Wicklow,W.)

  Crean, Eugene

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Crooks, William

  Hut ton, Alfred Eddison

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Cullinan, J.

  lllingworth, Percy H.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Jackson, R. S.

  O'Dowd, John

  Delany, William

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Grady, J.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh,S.)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Hare Patrick

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

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Malley, William

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Mara, James

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Jones, SirD.Brynmor(Swansea

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Duckworth, James

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Partington, Oswald

  Duffy, William J.

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

  Paul, Herbert

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  152

  153

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Seddon, J.

  Vivian, Henry

  Philipps, Col. Ivor(Southamton

  Shackleton, David James

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Philipps, Owen (J. (Pembroke)

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

  Wallace, Robert

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Walsh, Stephen

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Pollard, Dr.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

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

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh Central

  Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)

  Ward,W. Dudley (Southamp'tn

  Radford, G. H.

  Snowden, P.

  Wardle, George J.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Reddy, M.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Wason,John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

  Watt, H. Anderson

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

  Steadman, W. C.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Richardson, A.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  White, Patrick (Meath,North

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Robertson,Sir G.Scott(Bradfrd

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wiles, Thomas

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Summerbell, T.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Sutherland, J. E.

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

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

  Rowlands, J.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Runciman, Walter

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

  Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Huddersf'd

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Thorne, William

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Schwann, SirC E. (Manchester)

  Toulmin, George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Sears, J. E.

  Ure, Alexander

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Verney, F. W.

  J. A. Pease.

  LORD R. CECILsaid he desired to move an Amendment with a view to securing that the clause should not be used to protect those who under the guise of a trade dispute would be really trying to secure some other indirect object. He thought he would at any rate nave the support of the hon. Member for the Denbigh District in making this proposition. Indeed he had some hope that he would act as teller with him in the Lobby, because the hon. Member had said more than once that what he desired in this Bill was that trade unionists should not be placed in an advantageous position as compared with other workmen, but in the same position as everybody else in regard to the law of conspiracy. The hon. Member for the Denbigh District upon a former occasion said that what trade unions were asking for was that the law as laid down in the Mogul case should be the law applied to trade unionists in trade disputes. Now the words of the Amendment which he had to propose were taken from the judgment given in the Mogul case. His Amendment would made the clause read—
  " An act done in pursuance of an agreement or combination by two or more persona shall, if done in contemplation or furtherance of a
  154
  trade dispute for the purpose of lawful gain o-the enjoyment of lawful rights, lint be action able unless the act, if done without any such agreement or combination, would be actionable as a tort."
  It had already been pointed out that they had no clear definition of a trade dispute and the words used in the Conspiracy Act of 1875 extended far beyond any disputes: between trade unions and employers, be use there was nothing about trade unions in the Conspiracy Act of 1875. This Bill was an Amendment of the Conspiracy Act of 1875. Therefore, a trade dispute when it came to be discussed in the Law Courts would have to be denned by the Judges and they would have to say what they conceived the words to mean in their ordinary acceptation. He could see nothing in this Bill to limit them to any commercial dispute having for its main purpose and object some trade advantage or some trade object. He thought these words would quite clearly apply to such disputes, and he thought everybody intended that the clause should apply to the action of employers and employees with reference to their work. Any combination of employers would be protected under this clause in their action against workmen, and he

  155
  suggested that unless words such as he was suggesting were put in they would be able to use this clause so as to secure objects very different from trade objects. It was clear that there might be amongst employers an agreement to act in such a way as to hinder work, not to promote their own lawful right, but with the object of injuring some particular business. As far as he could read the clause such action would unquestionably be assisted by this Bill, because it would be quite easy for the employers to represent such a matter as a trade dispute, and it would really be a dispute between employers and workmen which might involve the dismissal of workmen by a group of employers and would come under the words—

  "in furtherance of a trade dispute …noble actionable unless the act, if done without any such agreement or combination, would be actionable as a tort."
  Let the Committee consider another instance. Let them assume that a large combination was formed for the promotion of some kind of protection. Let them assume also a very large federation of employers formed with the object of securing the passage of some particular modification of a tariff in their favour. He did not think that was an unknown thing. If they passed this clause as it stood they would at once legalise a gigantic combination of employers to dismiss the whole of their workmen unless they voted for a particular proposal in which the employers happened to be interested. He had expressed in this House and elsewhere his views upon protection principally on account of the evil which might be involved by great combinations of employers endeavouring to promote their own trade interests in this way. He wished to point out to the Committee that if they passed this clause as it stood they would, be putting into the hands of large employers a very strong weapon. He therefore hoped that some limitation of the words would be accepted. If the words he had suggested were unsatisfactory let the Government suggest other words. At any rate he thought some limitation should be put upon this power of combination.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 10, after the word ' dispute,' to insert 'for the purpose of lawful gain or
  156
  the enjoyment of lawful right.' "—(Lord Robert Cecil.)
  *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the Amendment would destroy the whole efficacy of the clause. It was proposed to leave the law in the extremely unsatisfactory condition in which it stood at present. The noble Lord suggested that the test of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of combination was the question whether its object was "for the purpose of lawful gain or the enjoyment of lawful rights." It afforded no criterion as to whether the gain or the right to be asserted were lawful. It was because there was no such test that the present condition of the law-was unsatisfactory, and this clause was framed to afford a test. He night allude to some of the difficulties in connection with the law as they found it, and which were due entirely to the fact that the tribunal must at some stage or other express an opinion with regard to the objects of combination, and declare it legal or illegal having regard to those objects. The hon. Member had given them a case of combination of employers to restrict their employment to persons who were not trade unionists. He strongly disapproved of that, and said it was unreasonable, but he had met some people who thought it most right. Who was to decide whether it was right or wrong? If the law remained as it was now or with these words in the clause, there was absolutely no test in Heaven and earth, except the opinion of the particular person who was asked to determine whether the object of the combination was lawful or unlawful. Take the judgment of Lord Brampton. He seemed to throw the objects of trades unions into two categories. The noble Lord said that with regard to some "it is quite clear that they are lawful." For instance, if the object of a trade union or a strike was to improve the conditions of labour, to raise the rate of wages, or improve the lot of the employed, then it was clearly lawful; but, if the object was to restrict the employers from giving the union men employment then it was clearly unlawful. Supposing they got a combination to confine trade union machinery to skilled workmen, would that be lawful or unlawful? Who was to say? There was also the case of restricting the output. Was that to be a

  157
  lawful or an unlawful object? There was, moreover, the case as to the number of machines a particular man had to look after: trade unions contend one thing and employers another. If trades unions caused a strike to effect their views, was that lawful or unlawful? Unless the legality of the act of the individual was taken to be the test of the legality of the acts of the combination, there was no satisfactory test which it was possible td apply. They knew by that at once whether the Act was right or wrong. If it was right, it might be done in combination; if it was wrong, it might not be so done. If the Committee said that these bodies might pursue objects lawful and assert rights lawful, they left the whole question in the dark.
  *SIR FRANCIS POWELL, as representing a manufacturing and mining district, said he devoted some time last session to service on the Law Committee which considered the Bill of that year. He was extremely anxious, more anxious than he could describe, that wise legislation on this subject should be amongst the achievements of the present session. He regarded with nothing less than grief the misfortune which befell the Bill in 1905, but that misfortune would be a calamity in 1906 if no legislation took place. He hoped that neither side would seek a forensic victory. This legislation affected the hourly and daily life of millions of our countrymen, and he listened with some impatience to the ingenuity of his learned friends when such real and vast interests were at stake. He also felt regret for the language used by some speakers on the Opposition side of the House toward trade unionists. They were described by the hon. Member sitting near him as a ragged army. They had before them day by day and night after night representatives of that Party on the benches below the Gangway, and he hoped they would not think it an undue liberty on his part if he ventured to say that there was no class of Members in this House which was held in greater respect and no Members who were listened to with more attention. One reason in favour of the Amendment was that it would limit the range of trade disputes. But what had been the action of the trade
  158
  unionists? It was common knowledge there had been some great and deplorable strikes entailing much suffering, but to every one strike caused by trade unions a hundred which would have caused much injustice and suffering to the working classes had been averted by them in an honourable manner and with a dignified spirit. He believed that the passage of a measure something on the lines suggested by the Bill would remove many difficulties.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order ! The hon. Baronet is getting a little wide of the subject. Will he kindly confine himself to the Amendment?
  *SIR FRANCIS POWELLdid not desire to trespass beyond the proper limits of the debate, but he confessed he was so much moved by what hon. Members on the Opposition benches had said that he could not help expressing some portion at least of his sentiments upon the question.
  MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsaid his objection to the Amendment of the noble Lord was that it was vague. All they asked was that trade unions should be placed upon the same footing as other people.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid the words suggested by the noble Lord seemed to his lay mind to be very reasonable. They would have great effect and great weight. They were "for the purpose of lawful gain or the enjoyment of lawful rights." It seemed to him the only object in having lawyers, judges, and law courts was to interpret what was lawful. No one in this House or outside it wanted to do anything that was unlawful. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway had not, he thought, read the Bill, because the avowed object of this proposal was to render acts done by a certain number of people legal which up to the present time had been illegal. They ought to be careful that while a combination under this clause would be authorised to do what they had not been authorised to do before it would be—
  " For the purpose of lawful gain or the enjoyment of lawful rights."

  159
  He asked the Attorney-General if he could assure him that the Courts of law did not know what a lawful thing was, and, if he could do that, he was not sure that he should vote for the Amendment. He could not help thinking, as a layman, that it was perfectly evident the Courts of law must know what a lawful thing was, and, if he was right in thinking that, he should support the noble Lord if he went to a division. Allusion had been made to words used by hon. Members above the gangway towards trade unionists, but there was only one hon. Member who had said anything which might be taken as offensive. He was sure all the hon. Members above the gangway, including himself, had no wish to say anything offensive to trade unionists; they wished to conduct the debate in an amicable way. They; had, however, the right to their feelings and the right to express them, but he hoped they would do so in a proper manner. He believed his hon. friend who made use of the expression only did so on the spur of the moment.
  LOED R. CECILsaid, in asking leave to withdraw his Amendment, he would only say that no answer whatever had been made to the substance of the argument he had ventured to address to the Committee. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Then hon. Members opposite did not attach the same meaning to the English language as he did. It had been said with a great deal of force that these words were vague, and that they were unsatisfactory because they were vague. The hon. Member for Denbigh said that tersely and the Attorney-General said it at greater length. He admitted it was hard to draw the line between the kind of combination it was desired to admit and the kind of combination which would be a great danger to the State. But in the form of the clause they were legalising all combination which could not possibly be said to have a trade object. He was sure, in the form in which the clause was drafted, it would be made use of in a serious way injurious to the State, and that hon. Gentlemen below the gangway and opposite would not be the last to complain of it. He asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYproposed to insert the words, "as to wages or other conditions] of labour" after the word "dispute "That could not be characterised as vague, and therefore would not be open to the objections raised by the Attorney-General to the last Amendment. His object was, as far as possible, to define to what extent an authorised combination of workmen or other persons could be pursued. He thought it was very necessary that some definition should be put in. The hon. and learned Gentleman had recently said that this Bill was confined to trade unions, and was intended to deal with them, but according to the title it was a Bill to provide for the regulation of trade unions and trade disputes, and in Clause 5 it said, "this Act may be cited as the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, and the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1876, and these Acts may be cited together as the Trade Union Acts, 1871 and 1906. Therefore it was very evident that a definition such as this should be inserted unless it was intended that it should apply to every dispute in any trade of any sort or kind. One of the chief objects of the Amendment was to prevent non-unionists being deprived of work. He did not think anyone would say that a man was not entitled to work because he was not a member of a trade union. Trade unionists themselves said that unless the employer dismissed any non-union men he might have in his employ and replaced them with union men, other persons with whom he dealt would have men withdrawn from their work. That was a very serious thing. He believed if, when this Bill was passed, such a thing as that were done it would arouse such feeling in the country that the result would be very different from what hon. Gentlemen below the gangway anticipated. He thought they would have Pinkerton men, a type well-known in the United States, brought over here. [A LABOUR MEMBER: They would soon go back.] The hon. Gentleman evidently thought the power behind trade unions so strong—and he presumed he meant that they would not be very particular as to the means they used— that these people would go back, but he

  161
  could not be so sure. It must be remembered that employers and employed both came from the same stock. They were both Englishmen as a rule, and they had the same feelings. He hoped his Amendment would be accepted if only for that reason. He pointed out that there might be, through no fault of the hon. and learned Gentleman, no Report stage. The first thing to do to make sure of a Report stage was to accept an Amendment. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to accept his, and if he did not like it when the Report stage was reached, he could move to omit it.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 10, after the word ' dispute,' to insert the words ' as to wages or other (condition: of labour.' "—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
  *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the hon. Baronet had made such a winning appeal to him that if he could have done so he should have quite cordially accepted his Amendment, but the objections to it were twofold. In the first place, it restricted the operation of this clause within very narrow limits, because it only legalised combinations which had for their object the improvement of the conditions of labour or the raising of wages, and shut out altogether other combinations which trade unionists might consider essential to their interests or the advancement or extension of their organisations which did not involve any broach of the law. The second objection was that it infringed the whole principle of the clause, because the object of the clause was to make it free to trade unionists to decide upon the policy which they should pursue. They were the best judges of that. The object of the clause was to give perfect freedom, with the one restriction that the conduct they decided upon must be lawful conduct if it were the conduct of an individual.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid the remarkable thing about the Amendment was that it would not carry out the object which the hon. Baronet had in view. It would not exclude conduct which had for its ob-
  162
  ject the shutting out of non-union men. It was none the less interesting and necessary to point out that, although it had been most forcibly brought to the attention of the Government, the clause as it stood went far beyond their avowed object, viz., the legalising of the application of the process of combination to all legitimate objects pursued by the employed. It could be shown to legalise combinations of a totally different kind and which, whilst it might not be possible to call them unlawful, wore yet most undesirable. Although this was the second opportunity offered to the Attorney-General, he had not shown the slightest desire to exclude these other political and trade combinations from the very odious privilege of this clause, which would probably be forced upon the House by the Government majority and would legalise combinations which nobody by the widest possible stretch of imagination could describe as desirable.
  *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he really did not understand the speech of the hon. Gentleman. He had said he would consider the desirability of giving such a definition of "trade disputes" as to shut out disputes between traders and disputes not connected with the relations between employers and their workman.
  LORD R. CECILsaid the last phrase of the right hon. Gentleman showed that they had not yet been able to make quite clear the point he had pressed upon him. The very disputes he referred to were disputes between employers and workmen, and they showed that they had a very real danger, which existed in a number of countries all over Europe and in America, to fear.
  *SIR JOHN WALTON: That is quite a different thing.
  LORD R. CECILsaid it was not. They must have some limitation of "trade disputes" which would exclude those kinds of combinations and their actions which they had already alluded to and which formed a serious danger. Although the Attorney-General might not like their words, it would have

  163
  been more satisfactory if he hail shown an appreciation of the arguments they had submitted and had made some attempt to deal with them.

  AYES.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Baling, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Hervey,F.W.F.(BuryS Edm'ds

  Smith. F.E.(Liverpool,Walton)

  Barrie, H. T.(Londonderry.)

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Talbot,Rt.Hn J. G. (Oxf'dUniv

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hunt, Rowland

  Valentia, Viscount

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Carson, Rt Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. G. Stuart-

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Craig, Chas, Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Nield, Herbert

  Frederick Banbury and

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Lord Robert Cecil.

  Fell, Arthur

  Pease,Herbert Pike(Darling ton

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Glover, Thomas

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Coats, Sir T. Glen(Renfrew,W.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Agnew, George William

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Alden, Percy

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

  Gulland, John W.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hall, Frederick

  Atherley-Jones,L.

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

  Halpin, J.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hammond, John

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury,E.)

  Cotton, Sir H.J.S.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hardie,J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cox, Harold

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Barlow, JohnEmmott (Somerset

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Crean, Eugene

  Harrington, Timothy

  Barnard, E. B.

  Crooks, William

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Beaumont, Hubert(Eastbourne

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Bell, Richard

  Delany, William

  Hazleton, Richard

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Dewar,Arthur(Edinburgh, S.)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Benn, SirJ.Williams(Devonp'rt

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Henry, Charles S.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Hills, J. W.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Duckworth, James

  Hodge, John

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Duffy, William J.

  Hogan, Michael

  Black,Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Boland, John

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N.E.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hudson, Walter

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Brace, William

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Brigg, John

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Brodie, H. C.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Jackson, R. S.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Essex, R. W.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

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

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Jenkins, J.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Burl, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Ferens, T. R.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jones,SirD. Brynmor(Swansea)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Findlay, Alexander

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Jowett, F. W.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Joyce, Michael

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Kelley, George D.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Gill, A. H.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Clough, W.

  Ginnell, L.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Aves, 30 Noes, 289. (Division List No. 281.)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  O'Dowd, John

  Stanley,Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Lambert, George

  O'Grady, J.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Lamont, Norman

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Malley, William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex,Harwich

  O'Mara, James

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Levy, Maurice

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Sullivan. Donal

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hn. David

  Partington, Oswald

  Summerbell, T.

  Lough, Thomas

  Paul, Herbert

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Lundon, W.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Piekersgill, Edward Hare

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Macdonald, J.M. (FalkirkB'gha

  Pollard, Dr.

  Thorne, William

  Maclean, Donald

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Toulmin, George

  M'Callum, John M.

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

  Verney, F. W.

  M'Kean, John

  Radford, G. H.

  Vivian, Henry

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

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

  Reddy, M.

  Wallace, Robert

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Maddison, Frederick

  Richards,T. F. (Wolverhampt'n

  Walters, John Tudor

  Mallett, Charles E..

  Richardson, A.

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

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ward,W.Dudley(Southampt'n

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wardle, George J.

  Massie, J.

  Robertson, SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney)

  Meagher, Michael

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Rose, Charles Day

  Weir, James Galloway

  Mond, A.

  Rowlands, J.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Runciman, Walter

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  White, Patrick(Meath, North)

  Morse, L. L.

  Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Murnaghan, George

  Sears, J. E.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Murphy, John

  Seddon, J.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Murray, James

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Myer, Horatio

  Shackleton, David James

  Wilson, HenryJ.(York,W. R.)

  Nicholson,CharlesN. (Doncast'r

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

  Wilson, J. H (Middlesbrough)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Huddersf'd

  Nuttall, Harry

  Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim,S.)

  O' Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid)

  Snowden, P.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Pease

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYmoved to insert in line 10, after the word "actionable"the words "unless damage had been caused or."the object of Ins Amendment was to endeavour to safeguard the trade of the country, because if this clause would permit damage to be caused to the trade of the country it would be a very serious thing at the present time. We were in very keen competition with foreign countries, and he did think it would be a very serious thing if, because some provision of this sort was not put in, the trade of the country was to be injured. There were several reasons in the Report of the Royal Commission why something to this effect should be introduced. He
  166
  admitted Lord Lindley signed the minority Report, but he remembered on very many occasions being in a minority in the House, and he was not at all sure that a Report, because it was a minority Report, was not to be received, sometimes, with great consideration—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order ! The hon. Member must please speak to his Amendment.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he wished to put in words to limit what might be done to actions which should not cause damage. The Attorney-General's argument was that this clause was not likely to cause any damage, because it

  167
  only emphasised the law as it regarded one man, and that therefore damage could not ensue; but he was endeavouring to point out that unless "damage" was inserted a great deal of harm would result.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must really limit himself to his Amendment.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he was endeavouring to prove that it would be possible unless these words were inserted to have damage caused which would be a very serious thing to the country, because a large combination of men could cause damage which could not be done by one person. It was very evident that a body of men might do a great deal perhaps in the heat of the moment which, they would not do in their calmer moments. They might do all sorts of violence and prevent people carrying on their business, and so cause them a great amount of damage. It was evident if a large number of people collected outside a man's dwelling, they could cause him considerable damage, whereas, if there was only one man, he would cause no damage. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment. He could not see that it was in any way likely to injure the desires of trade unions, because it did not prevent them taking any action unless by so doing they caused damage. He did not suppose it was their desire to cause damage to anyone in this country.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 10, after the word ' actionable,' to insert the words 'unless damage has been caused or.' "—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR JOHN WALTONthought the hon. Baronet was under a little misapprehension with regard to the clause. There must be damage to constitute a cause of action. They must show some damage in order to prosecute.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid he should like to emphasise what the "clause was
  168
  doing. They were going to lay down by the legal declaration of the House that damage might be lawfully caused by combination, and there was to be no remedy. That was what the House meant to lay down, and he thought it was well that the Committee and country should understand it. They were going to give immunity, although a conspiracy had been entered into, and although damage in pursuance of that had arisen.
  MR. BOWLESsaid he rose for two purposes: first of all to support, as far as he was able, the Amendment, and, secondly, for the more important purpose of making one personal explanation. During the speech which he had made earlier in the evening with regard to this Bill he had been betrayed into using an expression which was, now that he had come to look at it, obviously improper. He believed it was referred to during his absence, and he desired to say he did not in the least intend to make the reflection which that expression would suggest. He thought the reflection was totally unwarranted, totally unnecessary and untrue, and, in so far as the expression conveyed those impressions, he desired unreservedly to withdraw it. With regard to the Amendment before the Committee, he recognised that it was impossible to expect the learned Attorney-General to accept it. The Amendment went to the root of the clause, and, if it were accepted, would make the clause meaningless. He could not bring himself to agree to a proposal which undoubtedly would lead to real damage without there being any remedy, and upon that broad and general ground if his hon. friend went to a division he should support him.
  MR. SHACKLETONsaid on behalf of himself and his friends that they accepted the withdrawal the hon. Member had made of his previous statement.
  Question put, and negatived.
  *MR. ATHERLEY-JONESmoved "To leave out the words 'actionable as a tort,' in line 12, and to insert in their place the words ' a criminal offence'."

  169
  He thought his hon. friends opposite and on that side of the House would agree with him that there had been no action more fruitful of disaster to trade unions I than those actions which had been founded upon molestation, coercion, or intimidation. His hon. friends opposite would also agree with him that the words "molestation, coercion, and intimidation" were words of a singularly ambiguous character. He need only say that his experience of trade union cases satisfied him that in the vast majority of them adverse verdicts had been founded and successfully maintained on the basis of the legal meaning of the words "Intimidation and coercion," and he might add to that observation that trade unions and trade unionists suffered no greater hardship under the existing law than the hardship suffered under the law relating to intimidation and coercion. The result of his amendment would be to relieve trade unions entirely from the legal consequences of intimidation of the character already indicated and which had hitherto been successfully enforced against them. He proposed to limit the responsibility of members of trade unions in respect of intimidation to intimidation when that intimidation was only of a criminal character. Hon. Members would understand that the words "only of a criminal character" meant when there was a threat of personal violence—violence to person or property. Trade unions were contented to be liable for any intimidation which partook of a criminal character and that was the object of his Amendment. The clause, as it at present stood, was absolutely useless. He said that with a full sense of his responsibility as a lawyer. It afforded no protection whatever to trade unions. The clause as it stood was that the conspiracy to do an act should not be actionable unless that act was actionable when committed without conspiracy. That was the proposal put into plain English. Molestation, intimidation, and coercion of the kind he bad indicated was an actionable wrong, whether it was the result of a conspiracy or the act of one man without conspiracy or conbination with others, and he ventured with great respect to point out to those responsible for the Bill that a civil action for conspiracy would only lie in respect to unlawful acts; that was to
  170
  say, unlawful means to follow out a lawful object or lawful means to follow out an unlawful object. He wished to point out to hon. Members opposite that if they amended the clause in the direction he suggested, they got rid of the most dangerous weapon used against trade unions. It was perfectly true that the value of the clause would be much impaired, because, of course, if the new Clause 4 were passed employers of labour were hardly likely to bring an action against trade unionists, either officials or members, because they were not likely to get damages. For his part he said although the value of the clause would be much impaired by the new clause, which rendered trade unions immune, still at the same time there were the officials and members of unions liable to be shot at. He proposed that if it was a criminal act it ought to be actionable. The Attorney-General might say, "But why draw this distinction between crime and tort?" His reason for that was this. They were wise to provide exceptional legislation for trade unions, because having regard to the nature of the operations they had to conduct, they and their members were exceptionally exposed to the danger of transgressing a law so ambiguous and elastic as that which related to conspiracy, associated with "Intimidation" "coercion," and "molestation." He urged upon hon. Members the vital importance of insisting upon relieving the trade unions from what he could not help describing as the most disastrous effect of the present law with regard to actions of this character. Trade unions had suffered more from that law than anything else. It was a judge-made law. It was a law which had grown up in the old days when penal measures were ruthlessly enforced.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 12, to leave out the words ' actionable as a tort,' and to insert the words 'a criminal offenee."'—(Mr. Atherley-Jones.)
  Question proposed, "That the word ' actionable ' stand part of the clause."
  *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he understood that his hon. and learned friend desired that civil action should not lie in regard to what he characterised as coercion, intimidation, or molestation.
  MR. ATHERLEY JONES: Unless it is criminal.
  SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he understood that was his great object. Were the terms he had used terms of law or of rhetoric? An action at tort which was classified as coercion or intimidation or molestation.
  *MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid in the first place the word "Intimidation" was enshrined in an Act of Parliament, and in the second place the word "Intimidation" had a clear and definite meaning in law.
  *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he was bound to acknowledge the truth of his hon. and learned friend's remark that these words were enshrined in a Statute. That made them a crime, and therefore so far from relieving the trades unions from this class of action the only result would be that they would have to find what was meant by these words "intimidation," "coercion," and "molestation." and they would discover it in the Act of 1875. If they looked at that Act they would fee that defined the acts of coercion, intimidation, and molestation: The marginal note of that classification was in these terms—
  " Penalty for intimidation or annoyance by violence or otherwise."
  Therefore they had a class of acts which were catalogued as crimes, and therefore the Amendment of his hon. friend would not accomplish the object he had in view. All the acts enumerated in Clause 7 of the Act of 1875 were crimes, and therefore for any of those acts an action could be brought such as: (1) Uses violence to or intimidates such other person or his wife or children, or injures his property; or (2) Persistently follows such other person about from place to place; or (3) Hides any tools, clothes, or other property owned or used by such other person, or deprives him of or hinders him in the use thereof; or (4) Watches or besets the house or other place where such other person resides, or works, or carries on business or happens to be, or the approach to such house or place; or (5) Follows such other person with two or more other persons in a disorderly manner in or
  172
  through any street or road. All those acts were crimes, and therefore the Amendment would not prevent an action being brought in respect of them.
  *MR. HILLSsaid the Amendment would produce the absurd result that an act which was wrong if done by one man would not be wrong if done by a hundred men.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. BOWLESmoved an Amendment to insert at end of line 12;" Provided always that nothing in this section shall prevent an action being brought in respect of an act done in pursuance of a malicious intention to injure another person."the object was to leave a remedy for any person who could prove he had been damaged by an act as the result of an agreement among two or more persons in respect of a trade dispute, which was done in pursuance of a really malicious intention to injure. He did not know that there was any better way of laying before the Committee what the intention and the effect of this Amendment would be, as he understood it, than to detail the kind of acts which he had in his mind. Among the many cases there was the case, he believed a well known one, of Carr against the Amalgamated Society of Painters. In that case what happened was extremely simple. A certain painter he believed, in Manchester, employed a foreman, and that foreman for one reason or another persistently refused to join the local trade union. The executive committee of the union by a resolution gave authority to call out the men who were working with that foreman in the employ of the painter in order that they should not work with a non-union man. In pursuance of this agreement, conspiracy, or whatever they chose to call it, the men were thereupon called cut, and did in fact leave their work. The painter, left with his foreman, tried thereafter to get contracts of various kinds for painting, and the contractors to whom this painter applied were approached by officers of the trade union in question, and informed that if they gave any contract to Mr. Carr their men would all be called out as a protest, and the effect of that was that

  173
  the painter lost not only one particular contract but many contracts, and he sustained obviously great loss. It was found by the Jury in that case that the officials of the trade union did maliciously and in order to injure the plaintiff, conspire to obstruct, and did, in fact, obstruct, the plaintiff in carrying on his trade as a painter. That was a case of a real malicious intention—he used the word in the legal sense—to injure this particular person. The only object of this Amendment was to elicit a statement from the Government so that they might know exactly what their intentions were as regarded the effect of this clause upon acts of that kind. Of course, if the Government said they meant such acts should be really left without remedy, and if in contemplation or in furtherance of a trade dispute any number of persons might combine to do malicious damage without any remedy, then he supposed the matter must be left there, but he could not believe that the Attorney-General desired that. He did not believe that hon. Gentlemen below the gangway regarded that as a necessary part of the activities of real trade unionism, and he thought if there were any objection to his amendment it was an objection that this was an attempt to define things that were to be done and things that were not to be done, and that as this was unusual legislation for a particular set of circumstances, while resulting in good upon the one hand, it might result in hardship on the other. The question was a, short one; it was whether the Government,desired, whether hon. Gentlemen below the gangway desired that malicious acts done in pursuance of a malicious intention to injure a person should be left entirely without remedy, and it was with a view to getting an answer to that question that he begged leave to move the Amendment standing in his name.
  Amendment proposed.
  "In page 1, line 12, at end, to insert the words ' provided always that nothing in this section shall prevent an action being brought in respect of an act done, in pursuance of a malicious intention to injure another person.'' (Mr. Bowles.)
  Question proposed, '' That those words be there inserted."
  *SIR JOHN WALTONhoped the hon. Member would not proceed with this Amendment. It was quite impossible to impose the test which the hon. Member proposed.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill.
  LORD R. CECILsaid that, owing to an unfortunate accident, he was not in the House to move the Amendment standing in his name to leave out the words "as a tort." He could not move it now, but he could object to the passing of the clause in order to ask the Attorney-General what was the meaning of the words at the end. The clause ran in this way—
  " An act done in pursuance of an agreement or combination by two or more persons shall, if done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, not be actionable unless the act, if done without any such agreement or combination, would be actionable as a tort."
  He asked the Committee to conceive quite a common case—an agreement among certain people that they would all on a certain day break their contracts. That would be an agreement between two or more persons, and if in consequence of the agreement they did break their contracts, that would be an act done in pursuance of an agreement, and it would not be actionable. It would be merely an agreement among certain people to break their contracts. It would not be an actionable tort. He knew that the Attorney-General would correct him if he was wrong. In an action for a tort one must either pursue a man for breaking his contract or for a wrong suffered independently of contract. That was the whole theory of civil litigation. What this clause said was that an. act done in pursuance of an agreement was not to be actionable unless the act, if done without any such agreement, would be actionable as a tort. He dared say that the hon.and learned Gentleman had a simple and easy explanation of the words of the clause. It seemed to him clearly wrong, and that it should stop at the word "actionable." It was just possible that they arose from too slavishly following the words in Section 3 of the Conspiracy and Protection of

  175
  Property Act of 1875. He could not conceive what was the meaning of the words "as a tort," and he ventured to ask the Attorney-General whether he would introduce something in the clause to make the meaning clear.
  *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the noble Lord misapprehended the intention of the Bill. It did not contemplate an action for conspiracy being brought against three or more workmen who might break their contracts. The clause meant that an action for conspiracy should not lie where there was a simultaneous breach of contract on the part of a number of men. Where there was a breach of contract on the part of men in contemplation or in the course of a trade dispute, there was invariably a simultaneous act; and if labour acted together and in the course of acting together there was a breach of the contract of service,there were all the elements of an action for conspiracy at common law. There was a combination to break a contract, and therefore undoubtedly an action for conspiracy would lie. The object of the clause was not to allow such an action to be brought, because, in the view of the Government,it would be oppressive. They did not free men from responsibility, who, in the course of a trade dispute, left their work without serving out the whole time of their notice. They remained responsible under their contracts and their ordinary liabilities were not removed. What the Government said was that it was not their policy as part of legislation of this class to make these men as a body subject to an action for conspiracy where the act committed was not tortieous per se. Let the Committee suppose that an employer introduced a body of 200 or 300 under contract for three or six months. Let them suppose these men were engaged in Holland, Belgium, Germany, or elsewhere. They could not leave their work for the period of their engagement without a breach of contract. What was the position of these men? They found out possibly that they had been engaged under misrepresentations. They found out that they had been given a fallacious view of the dispute which had taken place in this country. They found out after experience that in their view the con-
  176
  ditions of employment were intolerable and they declined to go on because they felt that they ought not to go on. If they did not go on they would be liable for actions for breach of contract and the employers had all those remedies in their hands, and all that was said here was that they should not under those circumstances subject these men to an action for conspiracy in addition to their liability to pay damages for breach of contract. In his view the liability to pay damages was quite sufficient sanction to enforce those contracts. He thought for those reasons the words "as a tort," not having been included without due consideration, should stand.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid he did not wish to intervene in the merits of the dispute, but he ventured to submit to the Attorney-General that he had absolutely misapprehended his hon. friend's point on this matter. The Attorney-General had said that he had no intention of taking away from an employer his right of action against a single employee. But this section went far farther than that. Might he give a concrete instance of what he meant? Assuming there was a trade dispute and assuming that there was a contract that an employer should supply a large quantity of iron, of flour, or provisions, or anything of that sort, anyone could break that contract in pursuance of that dispute; and so carelessly was this section drawn that no action could be brought against any of them. He was not dealing with the merits of the case, but with the slovenly drafting of the section. If the Attorney-General would read the section again he would see what was meant. There was no question of an action for conspiracy at all. It was simply this. This section was drawn in such a way that what it said was that any act done in pursuance of an agreement by two or more persons should, if done in furtherance of a trade dispute, not be actionable unless the act if done without any such agreement or combination would be actionable as a tort. Therefore if it was simply actionable as a contract they could bring no action as a tort. Under that section the employer had no remedy against a single servant who broke his contract after three

  177
  months employment. Supposing there were three people under contract to deliver flour and those three people did not deliver the flour because they had agreed to break their contracts to deliver it. The section said an act if done in contemplation of a trade dispute would not be actionable unless the act so done would be actionable as a tort. That would not be actionable here as a tort but as a contract. It was merely a question, of drafting. This section as it stood would prevent a person bringing an action for breach of contract against those millers who declined to deliver flour. He was not convinced that the omission of the words "as a tort" would be the best means of carrying out the intention of the Committee, and he suggested that the clause required redrafting in order to carry out what he gathered to be the full intention of the Committee in this matter.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid two reasons had been advanced for this clause. The first was that the law had been altered by the decisions in the Taff Vale case and in the case of Quinn v. Leathern. Those decisions were not in contemplation when the Act was passed in 1875 and therefore, as the law required a new interpretation, it must be amended. The next reason was that there really was not much in it. The reason given by the Attorney-General was because an action which was done by a number of people would still be liable to civil or criminal prosecution it was illegal if done by one person. In regard to the next point that this clause was necessary in order to alter a misconception in the Act of 1875, he pointed out that three Commissioners in the Report did not take that view. They said they were satisfied that the law laid down by the House of Lords involved no new principle and was not inconsistent with the legislation of 1871. It was indeed true, they proceeded, that that statute did not declare nor had any other statute declared that trade unions should be liable to an action in tort, and before the Taff Vale case there was not on record any case in which, the question of the liability of a trade union was distinctly raised and in which, a Court of Law pronounced a trade union liable. But this did not prove the
  178
  trade unions as such possessed any special exemption from actions of tort. On the contrary it could not be disputed, the Commissioners pointed out, that theoretically the funds of trade unions had all along through their members been subject to the general law of liability. The Commissioners went on to say that—
  " An action to recover damages in respect of a tort could be instituted only in the Courts of Common Law, and those Courts, although they did not allow the non-joinder of defendants to be pleaded in such an action either in bar or in abatement, adopted a rigid rule that judgment could not be recovered against any person or persons not named as defendants in the action. From this it followed that no property could be taken in execution which was not the property of the named defendants. If, therefore, an association consisted of so large a number of persons that it was impracticable to ascertain the names of all of them or to make them all defendants, the property of the association as distinguished from that of the individual members could not be taken in execution in a Common Law action."
  The same Commission had also stated that on the grounds of justice and equity the law as laid down in the Taff Vale case appeared insurmountable.
  "That vast and powerful institutions '
  they said—
  " should be permanently licensed to apply the funds they possess to do wrong to others and by that wrong inflict upon them damage perhaps to the amount of many thousand pounds and yet not be liable to make redress out of those funds would be a state of things opposed tthe very idea of law and order and justice."
  Those words appeared to him to be extremely true. They were laid down by three Commissioners, and he had never heard in the course of the debate a single argument which would go to prove that the conclusion they then arrived at was wrong. With the single exception of an hon. Member below the gangway on the opposite side no Member of the Labour Party had got up and attempted to justify this clause. The justification which was used by the Attorney-General to the effect that the remedy would be that if the action done by one individual was illegal it would apply to this combination was dealt with by Sir William Lewis, who made some forcible quotations from some of the learned judges of the land. Sir William T. Lewis at page 130 of his minority Report quoted Lord Macnaghten who said—
  " A man may resist with much difficulty the wrongful acts of an individual…but

  179
  it is a very different thing when one man has to defend himself against many combined to do him wrong."
  Sir William Lewis also quoted Lord Lindley, who said—
  " My Lords, it is said that the conduct which is not actionable on the part of one person cannot be actionable if it is that of several acting in concert. This may be so where many do no more than one is supposed to do. But numbers may annoy and coerce where one may not. Annoyance and coercion by many may be so intolerable as to become actionable and produce a result which one alone could not produce. But there are many ways short of violence, or the threat of it, of compelling persons to act in a way which they do not like."
  He thought that under this clause the damage that would result, not only to trade unions, but to employers and those possessed of capital must recoil upon the workmen. That damage would, in his judgment, be irretrievable. It would put power into the hands of people, honestly actuated no doubt by motives which were wrong and of which they did not perceive the effect, who ought not to be entrusted with it. It would allow them to do illegal acts from which misery and suffering would flow to other persons. He thought he had shown that, according, to the opinion of three of the Commissioners who were gentlemen of great ability and impartiality, there was an error in saying or believing that the decision in the Taff Vale case or in the case of Quinn v. Leathern was not absolutely right. They had shown that that was the law although people might not have generally known that it was the law. He had quoted opinions which showed that this clause could not be rendered harmless because the tort of one person was shared by many. He had shown that that was an illusion. He had shown that the clause gave the power to persons to combine for a perfectly illegitimate purpose for
  the doing of which they should be prosecuted, and that if the clause were agreed to great injury would be cast upon the trade and industries of this country. The trade and industry of this country were not in too good a state now.
  THE DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. CALDWELL,)pointed out that the hon. Member must not make a Second Reading speech in Committee.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he was only talking about the right of people to combine for an illegitimate purpose. If he was making a Second Reading speech he should be entitled to refer to any other clause of the Bill that he wished. He ventured to affirm that there was not a single Member present who would get up and prove, that what he said was wrong.
  MR. LYTTELTONsaid he had listened to this debate with great attention, and he thought the question raised by his noble friend was an absolutely sound one. If the intentions of the Government a; he understood them were put into force, it would still be possible for 500 or 600 miners in a particular colliery to leave their work without warning, with the result that if the colliery became flooded, and £10,000 worth of damage was done, the colliery owner would have no effective remedy. Surely it would be a farce to suggest to him that his remedy was to sue separately 500 or 600 colliers for breach of contract.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided—Ayes, 313; Noes, 33. (Division List No. 282.)

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Laren,Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Brace, William

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

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

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Brigg, John

  Ginnell, L.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Bright, J. A.

  Gladstone,Rt.Hn. HerbertJohn

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Glover, Thomas

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Marks,G.Croydon(Launceston

  Brooke, Stopford

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Marnham, F. J.

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

  Grant, Corrie

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Massie, J.

  Bryce,J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Gulland, John W.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Hall, Frederick

  Meagher, Michael

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Halpin, J.

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hammond, John

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Buxton, Rt.Hn.SydneyCharles

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Mond, A.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hardie, J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Cairns, Thomas

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Cameron, Robert

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashford

  Mooney, J. J.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Haimsworth, Cecil B.(Worc'r)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Harrington, Timothy

  Morgan, J.Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Morse, L. L.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Harvey, A. G. C.(Rochdale)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Murnagban, George

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Murphy, John

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Murray, James

  Clough, W.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Myer, Horatio

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew,W.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Henry, Charles S.

  Norman, Henry

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hills, J. W.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

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

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hodge, John

  O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Corbett,A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Connor,James(Wicklow, W.)

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

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Cowan. W. H.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  O'Dowd, John

  Cox, Harold

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Grady J.

  Crean, Eugene

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Cremer, William Randal

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Malley, William

  Crooks, William

  Jackson, R. S.

  O'Mara, James

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Shaughnessy, P.

  Cullinan, J.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Jenkins, J.

  Partington, Oswald

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Paul, Herbert

  Delany, William

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Jones, SirD.Brynmor(Swansea)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

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

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Philipps,Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Duckworth, James

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Duncan,C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Kelley, George D.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paid

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

  Dunne, MajorE.Martin(Walsall

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Radford, G. H.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lambert, George

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Lamont, Norman

  Reddy, M.

  Elibank, Master of

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lover, A.Levy(Essex,Harwich

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

  Essex, R. W.

  Levy, Maurice

  Richardson, A.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Roberts, Chas. H. (Lincoln)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lough, Thomas

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Ferens, T. E.

  Lundon, W.

  Robertson, Sir G.Scott(Bradf'd

  Ffrench, Peter

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Macdonald,J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Maclean, Donald

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Flynn, James Christopher

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal,F.

  Rowlands, J.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Runciman, Walter

  182

  183

  Russell, T. W.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Ward,WDudley(Southampton

  Rutherford, V. H.(Brentford)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wardle, George J.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Schwann,SirC.E.(Manchester)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Wason,JohnCathcart(Orkney)

  Scott,A.H.(AshtonunderLyne

  Sullivan, Donal

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Soars, J. E.

  Summerbell, T.

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  White, J. D. (Dunbartonshire)

  Seddon, J.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Thomas,Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Shackleton, David James

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Whitehead, Rowland

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

  Thorne, William

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Toulmin, George

  Wiles, Thomas

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Turnour, Viscount

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Ure, Alexander

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Verney, F. W.

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

  Smyth,Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Vivian, Henry

  Wilson, J. H, (Middlesbrough)

  Snowden, P.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wallace, Robert

  Woodhouse,SirJ.T(Huddersf'd

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Walsh, Stephen

  Stanger, H. Y.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph(Chesh.)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Steadman, W. O.

  Ward,John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Pease.

  NOES.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Pease,Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Baring, Hon. Guy(Winchester

  Fell, Arthur

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield,Ecclesall)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry,N.)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Forster, Henry William

  Smith,F. E. (Liverpool,Walton

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Valentia, Viscount

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hervey,F.W.F. (BuryS.Edm'ds

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hunt, Rowland

  Cavendish,Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

  Law,Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Frederick Banbury and Mr.

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Rawlinson.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Craig, Chas.Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  *MR. BOWLESsaid he rose to move the Amendment which stood in his name to insert "not exceeding three" after the word "persons."the clause would then read—
  " It shall be lawful for one or more persons, not exceeding three, acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, to attend, peaceably and in a reasonable manner, at or near a house or place where a person resides or works or carries on business or happens to be, if they so attend merely for the purpose of obtaining or communicating information, or of persuading any person to work or abstain from working."
  The effect of that Amendment was sufficiently clear on general grounds as it stood, but he hoped the Committee would allow him to suggest shortly one or two considerations which did not appear upon the surface, but which ought to influence the Committee in considering whether this Amendment should be adopted. Hon. Members were no doubt well aware that by Section 7 of the Act of 1875 it was already possible for any
  184
  number of persons acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union during a trade dispute to attend at the various places mentioned in the clause if they did so for the purpose of obtaining or communicating information. But it was not legal so to attend in order to persuade anybody to work or not to work whether peaceably or not. The purpose of this clause was to allow peaceable persuasion in that way. Now the Committee would perceive that this procedure which was to be legalised was to take place, in the words of the clause itself, "peaceably and in a reasonable manner," and he submitted this Amendment to the Committee on the sole ground that it or something like it was absolutely necessary, as a matter of fact, in order that there should be some security, at any rate, by the insertion of a provision in this clause which would make it operate in a "peaceable and reasonable manner." What were these persons to do? They were to obtain

  185
  and communicate information and they were to peaceably persuade persons to work or to abtsain from working. What earthly reason could there be for a large crowd if these things were to be done in a peaceable and reasonable manner? What was the need of great numbers of persons? Was it to be asserted that two or three men of the highest intelligence, because they were the men who would be chosen, were incapable of obtaining or imparting information in connection with a trade dispute? Could it be really suggested that three persons were an insufficient number to persuade a man either to abstain from working or to work so long as that persuasion wasreally to be peaceable? He did not believe that any hon. Member would suggest that three persons were not amply sufficient for either of these things. He had endeavoured, but was unable to be convinced by the arguments that would probably be used against him. In the first place it would be said that if the number of men who were to be allowed to picket was limited, they would get into, the difficulty of whether these men were to be allowed to attend in many places at the same time. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laughed, but what he said was distinctly what he meant; whether these groups of two or three persons were or were not to be allowed to attend at more than one place at the same moment. Whether they were to have groups of two or three in many places at one time, or whether there were to be confined to one place. That was said to be one objection, but there was really nothing in that argument. If the intention of this clause was that these two or three persons might not go alone to one place, but that they might go to a man's house or any where else that he happened to be at; that if they could not find him at one moment they might have every security of being able to find him the next; then there was no limit to what they might do. The only object of limiting the number of persons to two or three was to ensure that what was really meant should be carried out, and that this clause should not be a tolerable pretence, and that such information as was imparted might be imparted in a really peaceable and reasonable manner.
  186
  Then again it was said or might be said that this Amendment was not necessary because any proceeding which was not peaceable or reasonable was already dealt with by the law. He earnestly wish that he could take that view. He did not believe any hon. Gentleman on either side of the House would uphold the kind of thing which was, as a matter of fact, done—there was nobody in the House who would defend many things which, had been done in the past. Though he was sure that hon. Gentlemen below the gangway would do all they could to prevent such things being done, there was no security that such things would not be done again. Take an instance at random. There was a man in connection with the Taff Vale case, a man named Berry. He started for work on August 20th and he was met by four pickets. He was told not to go to work; that nobody else was at work; and that more pickets were waiting for him at the Rhymney Gate, and he was afraid and went home. He put it to the Committee, did any hon. Member assert that things should go on in this way? If they did he had nothing more to say, but if they did not let them take the only possible course and accept his Amendment or something of the kind. The truth was that if they allowed indeterminate numbers of men to attend at any place—at a man's house, or wherever he happened to be, at the entrance of works, or anywhere else, the mere fact that they did attend in considerable numbers was in itself unreasonable and likely to result, without any overt act, in intimidation. He himself would have been profoundly intimidated if he had been met by such pickets, and men would be intimidated if other men were given these large powers to be used on other men without the proper control which hon. Members below the gangway desired to exercise and who really desired that, in future, picketing should be carried out in a peaceable and reasonable manner. It was in those circumstances that he earnestly submitted that such an Amendment as he suggested was really necessary. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 13, after the word ' persons,' to insert the words ' not exceeding three."—(Mr. Bowles.)
  Question proposed "That those words be inserted."
  *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the hon. Member had expressed what lie was sure was the desire of all. He was anxious that the right of picketing, which was exercised under this Bill, should not be exercised in such a way as to inspire terror in any class of workpeople, who might not agree with the strike. He had suggested that that object would be obtained by limiting the number in a way most likely to obtain it, and that some fixed figure mentioned in the Act would be the most effectual limit by which he could regulate the number of the picket. The answer to the hon. Member's argument seemed to be that any figure upon which the Committee might decide would be sure to be inapplicable to some conditions which might arise. Let them take his maximum figure of three. That figure certainly would be an excessive one if they were dealing with a very small works with a single entrance, in which case, one or certainly two men would be amply sufficient. On the other hand, if they were dealing with such works as Armstrongs, where several thousand men wore, employed, and where there were several entrances to the works, it would be impossible to limit the figure of the picket, and say they must not employ more than three. It was for that reason that instead of employing a figure the Government sought to find some expression which would restrict this right so that there should be no abuse, and they had put in the words "peaceable and reasonable." If the right was to be exercised in a peaceable and reasonable manner, a reasonable number of men had to be employed having regard to the particular case, and in that way the hon. Member's purpose was served in a better way than it would be by his proposal of three. He could not accept the Amendment
  VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid he had come down with a fairly open mind on this question, having something like 100,000 trade unionists in his division. Therefore, he was not biassed in any way. Though he frankly admitted he was not very, familiar with the Bill, it did seem to
  188
  him that this Amendment which had been moved by his hon. friend was entitled to some consideration and deliberation. A person approaching the Bill with an absolutely open mind would wonder why there was any objection to including this Amendment in it. The clause read thus:
  " It shall be lawful for one or more persons, acting on their own behalf or on behalf of the trades union, in contemplation or furtherance of a trades dispute, to attend peaceably and in a reasonable manner at or near a house or place where a person resides or works or carries on business or happens to be, if they so attend merely for the purpose of obtaining or communicating information or of persuading any person to work or abstain from working."
  Approaching that with an open mind one would like to ask why, if the clause allowed persons to attend peaceably and in a reasonable manner, one or at most two should not be able to do that. There seemed to be no possible reason why more than that number should be allowed. It could not be maintained that eight or ten persons would be any more capable of communicating or imparting information or persuading any person to work or abstain from working than two, and that if more than two or three attended they were going to prevent by some force, which was expressly against the meaning of the clause. It appeared to him nothing short of monstrous for any Bill to be passed containing any clause which gave power to any number of persons to attend at a person's house for the purpose of annoying him in any possible way, and a considerable number of people attending the house would be an annoyance. If they were going to allow fifty persons to be employed for the purpose of picketing, the chance of injury being done to property and persons was infinitely greater than if they allowed only one or two to attend. He could not conceive in what way this Amendment was against the spirit or intention of the Bill. It seemed to him to be a most admirable Amendment, and if the hon. Member went to a division he should support him and in saying that he said he was representing the views of 98 per cent, of those in his constituency.
  *MR. PARKESsaid that while it might be possible that picketing was in order until it became intimidation one could

  189
  quite understand that, when 100 men were gathered round a man's house that that amounted to intimidation, and nothing less. The case which the Attorney-General took of Armstrongs' works was a very extreme case, but there were any number of cases in which men would be intimidated for all practical purposes by such a gathering. He could quite conceive a man who on leaving his house in the morning found it surrounded by a crowd of 100 persons being intimidated. As he understood, besetting and watching was not legal. Now would an action like that be besetting and watching? Because they had here a very narrow margin between peaceful persuasion and besetting and watching. As the Bill now stood any number of persons might attend whether they were connected or whether they were unconnected with the dispute, and they could attend on their own behalf or anybody else's behalf at the house where a person resided or at his place of business, whether he was in the house or at work or on his way to work. It seemed to be a very drastic provision that a man should be followed wherever he might go and that he might be followed for days and weeks and perhaps for months during the period of a strike. He put it to hon. Members if they were in the position of a man being watched in this way whether they would say it was a position that should be allowed. If that was the case it carried its own condemnation with it. It was only right to set some limitation on the number of men who should be allowed to watch any man and follow him about in this way. He thought the clause in this form was one of the strongest objections one could have to the Bill.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that after listening to the Amendment and having given the best attention he could to the observations made upon it by the hon. and learned Attorney-General, he would say that if this clause had dealt and dealt only with the trade unions—if it was an exercise of these powers, though its defects were great, to carry out peaceful picketing at a man's place of business where he was to be subjected to the process known as "peaceful picketing," he should have been the first to recognise the weight of the argument of the learned
  190
  Attorney - General, that if the place of buiness had as many as twenty or thirty places of entrance and as many exits, the Amendment of his hon. friend would be futile and inoperative. If that had been the fact then indeed he would say the fault was not that of the Amendment proposed, but of the looseness and the comprehensiveness of the clause for which the Government", had made themselves responsible. They had neither introduced nor proposed to introduce any words to make any distinction whatever between peaceful picketing at a place of business and the peaceful picketing of a place of residence which was in every conceivable sense objectionable. The clause for which the Government had made themselves responsible permitted a picket, the numbers of which were unlimited, not only to wait outside the numerous exits and entrances of a place of business, but also allowed any number of men bound on peaceful persuasion.
  *SIR JOHN WALTON: Any number of men would not be reasonable.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid he would like to test that problem a little further. He did not quite appreciate it. The proposition was, as he understood it, that a number of men were desirous of working and that a number of other men were desirous that they should not be permitted to work. He submitted that ten men might be a reasonable number of men peacefully to persuade men who were desirous of working to abstain from working—a hundred men would not be a reasonable number. What they wanted in this case was not a statement made in debate which they could not bring before a jury. What they wanted was some legislative signification, some legislative guarantee introduced into the Bill that this should not be made a brutal violation of the elementary rights of those who claimed—and, in the judgment of the Opposition rightly claimed—to be able to sell their labour in the best market they could find in this country. When he said that this clause as introduced and supported by the Government was a brutal violation of that claim, he was not confining himself to the, a priori argument. There was the evidence which

  191
  Was given before the Commission—a Commission the constitution of which had not been, and could not be, impeached in this Home. He knew perfectly well the gravamen of the objection advanced below the Gangway. It was that no Labour Member sat on that Commission.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman would not be entitled to go into that question.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid the argument he was attempting to develop was that some numerical qualification was necessary to the right of peaceful picketing, and he was about to support that contention by arguments from evidence. That evidence had never been challeneged, and it illustrated the beautiful process of "peaceful" persuasion that would be applied under the provisions of this clause if there was no such limitation. An instance was afforded in the case of the strike at Aberamen on 2nd July, 1904, reported on page 125 of the Minutes of Evidence before the Royal Commission.
  THE CHAIRMANasked the hon. Member how he connected his quotations with the Amendment.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid the quotations went to show that in fact "peaceful picketing" was pursued by a larger number of men than the limit proposed. According to the South Wales Daily News of 10th August 1904—
  " A non-union man was turned out of his lodgings and was followed by a good-humoured crowd as far as Ferndale just in time to meet the men there going home from work, and upon the non-unionist being recognised, the chase was taken up by the Ferndale men. The non-unionist, however, made good his escape."
  MR. CROOKSrose to order. This was not a case of picketing.
  THE CHAIRMANruled that the quotation was not irrelevant.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that although he fully understood the objection of the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway to hear the evidence that was called before the Commission, he proposed to remind him of it in even greater detail so long
  192
  as he kept within the ruling of the Chair. The next case was the Thames Steam Company strike in 1900. The evidence in that case would commend itself to those who still believed in the possibility of peaceful persuasion when exercised by large numbers of persons at the expense of small numbers of persons. He understood from the position that was taken up below the gangway that it was suggested that if authorised members of a trade union approached a man and reasoned with him on the basis that he was a blackleg, that was peaceful picketing. In the case he was quoting a man who desired to continue his work was met by members of the union at a public-house at Shadwell and called a "blackleg."
  MR. J. WARDsuggested that the case to which the hon. and learned Gentleman was referring had nothing to do with the question of picketing. It was a mere pothouse squabble.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYasked whether it was not relevant to the words "at or near a house where a person resides or works or carries on business or happens to be?"
  THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not think he could rule the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks out of order
  MR. F. E. SMITHventured to think that the words where a man "happens to be" which the Government had introduced into their Bill, in the imperfect state of modern society, were not unlikely to mean a public-house. He could give evidence to that effect if necessary if any of the cases he had quoted were challenged by hon. Members below the Gangway. The effect of the evidence referred to was that wherever there had been a strong attempt on behalf of trade unionists to prevent non-union men working, this form of picketing had been a form, of persuasion which had natuarally led to violence, and therefore he thought it would be extremely unwise of this Committee to allow men in future to exercise their powers of persuasion in that way. It was not merely as if the proposal were confined to the place of business in which the man affected was

  193
  working. If that wore so there might be a great deal to be said for it, but it was a numerical limitation. No one familiar with the working classes of this country would refuse to accept this general proposition that they were not giving a man a fair chance of exercising an independent judgment as to whether he would work or not at a particular place when they entitled a crowd of men numbering between 100 and 150 to proceed to violence when their object had not been immediately satisfied. No member of this House would say that they were taking a step in the direction of individual choice or the freedom of judgment of the working men of this country as to the market in which they should sell their labour by authorising by law men, whose interests were not necessarily the interests of the whole of the working classes and whose only object was to force as many men as they could into the ranks of organised labour as contrasted with unorganised labour to indulge in, violence of this kind. This clause would allow a crowd of men to go not only to a workman's place of business but to his house, where his wife and children were, in order to induce him by acts of this kind to cease working at the place where he was earning his livelihood. During the Second Reading of the Bill introduced by an hon. Member below the gangway it was stated that trades unionists had not enough men to go in such large numbers in order to enforce peaceful persuasion. The hon. Member said they would only have perhaps two or three or four or five men for this purpose, and ridiculed the assumption that they might have 100 men at their disposal to attempt to enforce peaceful persuasion. The evidence given before the Royal Commission showed that over and over again not only had large and inordinate numbers of men gone to the places of business at which non-union men were working, but large numbers had gone to the houses at which non-union men resided and had exercised the most brutal intimidation in order to get those men to leave their employment.
  MR. SHACKLETONsaid he could not regard the statements which had just been made by the hon. and earned Member for Liverpool as facts.
  194
  The Attorney-General had really shown that any such limitation of numbers was an absurdity. To suggest that three could peacefully picket was an absurdity, and the hon. Member himself had admitted that three would be out of the question to picket peaceably in hundreds of cases in this country. He could understand the anxiety of hon. Members sitting on the Opposition side of the House if all these cases had to be settled by a bench of magistrates composed of Labour men or of judges belonging to the labouring class, but when all these points had to be settled by men who were far removed from the workmen's position surely hon. Members could place sufficient trust in them to decide what was peaceful and reasonable when dealing with trade disputes. The Courts were composed of men of their own class, and it was entirely unnecessary to insert any further restriction in the clause. The statement that they had the right of cross-examination in regard to the evidence was as far from the truth as it could possibly be. On the contrary the Labour Party asked for that right and repeatedly asked for it, and were refused it. On the other hand the employers were granted that right by having one of their own class placed upon the Commission. Therefore the statement that they had a right to cross-examine witnesses was absurd. The hon. Member for Liverpool had quoted a host of cases of what he had called peaceful persuasion in which violence was used, but there was not a single instance which it would not be illegal to do if this Bill were passed. That was his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool's charge that Labour Members wanted peaceful persuasion in anything like the terms which he had put before the House. It would be a deplorable thing when they had got to that point to engage in such proceedings without running the risk of the consequences of their own actions. If one man chose of his own free will to assist three of his colleagues to picket, to say they should be in the clutches of the law was absurd. They knew why that number was put there. They could appoint three men as a trade union, but they had no control whatever over the employer, who might send another three

  195
  men. He know cases where this had been done, and therefore they were not going to have any limitation of this character. They trusted to the reasonable, action of the men, and they left it to those in charge of the administration of the law to say whether they had broken the law or not. He hoped there would be no attempt made to fasten upon them anything like a limitation of this description.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid there was no desire that anything should be legalised in the shape of intimidation. What had been said by the learned Attorney-General might be so in the case of certain strikes, but he would like to call to mind the case of the dock strike. In that case he could quite imagine that the limitation of the pickets to the number of three would be quite impracticable, but if they agreed that there ought to be no limitation except such as would prevent intimidation surely they ought to be able to frame words to make that perfectly clear before the Committee, and what he had intervened for was to ask whether the Attorney - General was prepared to accept an Amendment upon this point which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Maidstone, which proposed to insert in line 10, after the word "manner"the words, "and in such manner as are not calculated to cause intimidation. "That seemed to him to be exactly what everybody appeared to desire, and that would leave it open to any person carrying on the strike to add any number they liked so long as those numbers, per se, were not calculated to cause intimidation. That was the way in which they ought to limit this enactment, and it would be in the direction of the views expressed during this debate. Therefore, he asked the learned Attorney-General whether he considered what he had suggested a reasonable way out of the difficulty.
  *MR. EVELYN CECILsaid he understood the Attorney-General to say that he considered the numbers would be necessarily reasonable because the word reasonable had been introduced. He gathered that the hon. and learned Attorney-General was of opinion
  196
  that he did not wish in this Bill that any numbers should be employed which tended in the direction of intimidation. He questioned whether, owing to the loose drafting of this clause, his intention would be carried out because the words of the Bill were —
  " It shall be lawful for one or more persons, acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union, in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, to attend, peaceably and in a reasonable manner."
  He did not think that the words "In a reasonable manner "necessarily applied to the number at all, but they applied to the manner of behaviour. At any rate it was a doubtful point and open to that interpretation. That being so it was most desirable to introduce some such words as those which stood in the name of the noble Lord the Member for Maidstone. He hoped the learned Attorney-General would clearly explain to the Committee exactly what he considered was the meaning of the words "In a reasonable manner ' '
  *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he did not assume that such extraordinary things as those which had been put forward could possibly occur. This was a right to be exercised by trade unions and it was for all the unions to persuade men to join their ranks in a reasonable manner. It therefore con templated the collective action of the union, and that collective action must be peaceably and reasonably exercised. He had no objection to say that the right should be exercised in a reasonable manner and by a reasonable number. He did not think that the expression added to the strength of the clause, because in his opinion the words "reasonable manner" also governed the question of numbers, but he did not at the moment see any objection to saying that it should also be by "a reasonable number," and he would certainly consider that point.
  SIR E. CARSONthought the statement that the Attorney-General had made was a very fair one, and so far as he was concerned he should advise the withdrawal of the Amendment,
  MR. F. E. SMITH,as a personal explanation, said he should just like to say a word in reference to what was said by the hon. Member to the effect that the Labour Members had the power of cross examination before the Commission. He was very sorry that it had been thought that he somewhat misled the Committee. [Cries of "No, no!"] He should like to say what was in my mind at the time.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I cannot allow that. The whole question is entirely out of order. In fact the hon. Member's first reference to it was also out of order.
  MR. BOWLESsaid that after the very sympathetic manner in which this Amendment had been received by the Attorney-General and in view of his promise to meet them upon the Report stage, he hoped the Committee would give him permission to withdraw his Amendment.
  Leave to withdraw the Amendment was refused.
  MR. KEIRHARDIEhoped the Attorney-General would consider this matter very seriously before making any further concession. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh" and laughter.] This might be a matter for amusement with some hon. Members, but it was not a matter of amusement with them. The clause as drafted was already an exceedingly dangerous one from the point of view of those who desired to conduct picketing in a perfectly reasonable manner, they had had experience to show that any loophole of the kind provided by the words "peaceable and reasonable manner" was used to make picketing impossible altogether. He only rose to say that they objected, not because they desired picketing which was either unreasonable or not peaceable, but because they objected to the proposal as it stood, and their objection to the present words would be very much strengthened if the clause was to be further weakened in the way suggested by the learned Attorney-General. Therefore he hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman
  198
  would not too readily either give a promise or agree to the insertion of words which would make picketing even more difficult in the future than it was at the present moment.
  *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he did not wish to be misunderstood upon this point. What he said was that according to his view at present the words "reasonable manner" must have regard to the number of men employed, but he stated that he would consider between this and the Report stage whether the introduction of a limit of number into the construction of reasonableness would strengthen the clause, and if so he would prepare and introduce words for that purpose. It must be understood, however, that he did not give any explicit pledge.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid the Attorney-General had now stated what he intended to say and he accepted what he had said. He had told them that reasonable numbers would avoid intimidation and he had promised that oven if his own view was right and was included in "reasonable manner" he would not object to make it perfectly clear by the insertion of the words "reasonable number." Those words were the words of the noble Lord the Member for Maidstone, and it was the Attorney-General himself who suggested "reasonable number." Of course he could not now go behind what the Attorney-General said, but he hoped he would see his way to make the matter perfectly clear by putting into the Bill what he said was his own intention that this great power should only be exercised by a reasonable number. It must be apparent to the whole Committee that no matter in what manner the power was given if 100 men went in a perfectly peaceable way smoking round the door of the house of one man that per se was intimidation. He hoped the Attorney-General in consequence of the speech which had been made from below the gangway would not in any way detract from what he had already said, I but would really put in those words. He was sure he wished to act impartially between the parties concerned upon this point.
  *MR. RUFUS ISAACShoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would hesitate very much before accepting the suggestion which had been made. They had already introduced the words "peaceably and in a reasonable manner," and he was quite sure that those familiar with the way in which those words had been interpreted in the Courts and with the question of whether an act was done in a reasonable manner or not, which would have to be determined by a jury, would not have any hesitation in coming to the conclusion that those words were quite sufficient to cover all the points which had been raised in the debate. If as his right hon. friend said just now 100 men were standing outside waiting for one man who was inside he did not suppose there would be anyone who would hesitate to say that that would be found to be not attending "peaceably and in a reasonable manner." [Cries of "Why "?] In the case of these 100 men standing outside a house smoking it

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork,N.E

  Black, ArthurW.(Bedfordshire)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Boland, John

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire,N.E.)

  Collins, SirWm.J(S.Pancras, W

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Agnew, George William

  Brace, William

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

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Allen, A.Acland(Christchurch)

  Brigg, John

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Bright, J. A.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Asquith,Rt.Hn. Herbert Henry

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth

  Astbury, John Meir

  Brodie, H. C.

  Crean, Eugene

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Cremer, William Randal

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

  Crooks, William

  Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury,E.)

  Bryce,J.A.(InvernessBurghs)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Cullinan, J.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Barlow, John Emmott(Somers.

  Buxton,Rt.Hn.SydneyCharles

  Delany, William

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh,N.)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Cairns, Thomas

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

  Barnes, G. N.

  Cameron, Robert

  Dilke, Rt.. Hon. Sir Charles

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Causton,Rt.Hn.Richard Knight

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Beale, W. P.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Duckworth, James

  Beaumont,Hubert(Eastbourne

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Beaumont, W.C.B.(Hexham)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R R.

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Bell, Richard

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)'

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Dunne,MajorE.Martin(Walsal)

  Benn, Sir JWilliams(Devonp'rt

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

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

  Cleland, J. W.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Clough, W.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Bethell, J.H. (Essex, Romford)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Elibank, Master of

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Coats,SirT.Glen(Renfrew,W.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Essex, R. W.

  had been suggested that they were standing outside in a manner amounting to intimidation, and that was not peaceably and in a reasonable manner. Therefore, that case "was covered by the words in this clause. He hoped that they would not have any further difficulty and complications introduced by the insertion of words which would only give rise to greater trouble, and more litigation.
  Two hon. Members rose to continue the discussion, but
  The ATTORNEY-GENERALrose in his place and claimed to move, "Thai the question be now put." [Cries of "Oh. oh "and" Gag "from the OPPOSITION benches.]
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 319; Noes, 49. (Divison List No. 283.)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lover, A.Levy(Essex,Harwich)

  Reddy, M.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Levy Maurice

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lough, Thomas

  Richardson, A.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lundon, W.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Macdonald, J. M.(FalkirkB'ghs

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Maclean, Donald

  Robertson, SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal,E.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Killop, W.

  Rowlands, J.

  Ginnell, L.

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Runciman, Walter

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

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

  Russell, T. W.

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Maddison, Frederick

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Grant, Come

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Marks, G. Croydon(Launcesten

  Schwann,Sir C.E. (Manchester)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Marnham, F. J.

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

  Griflith, Ellis J.

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Sears, J. E.

  Gulland, John W.

  Massie, J.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Hall, Frederick

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Seddon, J.

  Halpin, J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Hammond, John

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Shackleton, David James

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Micklem, Nathaniel

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

  Hardie,J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil

  Mond, A.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Worc'r)

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Harrington, Timothy

  Mooney, J. J.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim.S.)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Snowden, P.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morse, L. L.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Haydon, John Patrick

  Murnaghan, George

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh,

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Murphy, John

  Steadman, W. C.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Myer, Horatio

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Napier, T. B.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Henderson,Arthur (Durham)

  Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Henry, Charles S.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Sullivan, Donal

  Hodge, John

  Nuttall, Harry

  Summerbell,T.

  Hogan, Michael

  O' Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Thomas,Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Hutton, Allied Eddison

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

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

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Thorne, William

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O Dowd, John

  Toulmin, George

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Grady, J.

  Ure, Alexander

  Jackson, R. S.

  O'Hare Patrick

  Verney, F. W.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Malley, William

  Vivian, Henrys

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Mara, James

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Partington, Oswald

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds,S.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Paul, Herbert

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Jowett, F. W.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Ward, W Dudley (Southampton

  Joyce, Michael

  Philipps,Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Wardle, George J.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Philipps, Owen C (Pembroke)

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Kelley, George D.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pollard, Dr.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  Lambert, George

  Rainy, A. Holland

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Lamont, Norman

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Whitley,J. H. (Halifax)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  202

  203

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

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

  Woodhouse,iSir,JT.(Huddersfd

  Pease.

  NOES.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. SirH.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Nicholson, Win. G. (Petersfield)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fell, Arthur

  Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecelesall

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry,N.)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Beach, Hn.MichaelHugh Hicks

  Haddock, George R.

  Smith,F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Starkey, John R.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hardy,Laurence (Kent,Ashford

  Talbot',Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUniv)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hervey, F.WF(BuryS.'Edm'ds

  Thomson,W.Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hills, J. W.

  Turnour Viscount

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Cavendish,Rt.Hon.Victor C.W

  Keswick, William

  Wortley,Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lambert, George

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Viscount Valentia and Mr.

  Corbett, A. Cameron ((Glasgow)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Forster.

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Question, "That the words ' not exceeding three' be there inserted," put accordingly, and negatived.
  SIR E. CARSONmoved to report progress. They had been in the House, he said, since twelve o'clock; it had been a long and tiring day; and at that late hour it was not worth while going on with another Amendment.
  MR. SHACKLETONasked the Patronage Secretary when the Government proposed to take the Bill again.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid it was rather difficult to say. The Government were very anxious that the Committee stage of the Bill should be finished before the holidays. The Bill, however, could not be taken before Friday, but it would be put down as the first order on that day and, if necessary, the House would sit till eleven o'clock to discuss it. If the Committee stage was not finished by eleven o'clock on Friday night the House would have to devote a good many hours to it on Saturday. And should the Committee stage be still
  204
  unfinished he was afraid it would have to go over to October.
  SIR E. CARSON: Might I suggest that we should sit on Sunday?
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he was afraid the rules of the House did not permit them to do so. [Cries of "Yes they do."] If, however, the Committee stage of the Bill was not concluded on Saturday night the Government must seriously consider the question of taking it on the Monday of the following week.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again,"—(Sir Edward Carson)—put, end agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
  Adjournment,—Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn until To-morrow."—Mr. Whiteley)—put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at live minutes before Eleven o'clock.