HC Deb 02 November 1906 vol 163 cc1452-519

As amended, further considered

MR. F. E. SMITH (Liverpool, Walton)

said the Amendment standing in his name to insert after "trade union" in Clause 2 the words "or of an individual employer," was one which had already received the attention of the House when the Bill was proceeding through Committee, and he should not have troubled the House further on the same point if the Attorney-General had not said when the Amendment was moved, that they had not succeeded in making its object intelligible. The point to which he desired to call the attention of the House was that the omission of a provision extending the same rights to an individual employer as to an association made it quite impossible for the Government to contend, as was contended last night, that the Bill, as between employers and employed, was to be completely impartial. Under Clause 2, sub-section (1), as the Attorney-General stated when the measure was considered in Committee, they were for the first time making certain acts lawful which up to the present time had not been lawful. In the interests of what parties were those acts made lawful? As the Bill stood they would be made lawful in the first place for associations of workmen, and, in the second place, for associations of employers. He thought the Attorney-General would agree with him that in its present shape, the Bill only gave those rights to associations of working men such as trade unions and to associations of employers. The important point for the House to consider was, that if these rights were legitimate weapons to be used, they must not be limited in the matter of industrial warfare or strikes to the case where one of the parties had made himself one of an association. He would give an illustration to make the unreasonableness of this clear. There had lately been considerable discussion in the papers as to the action of the hon. Member for Birkenhead in forming a trust. Assuming for the purposes of argument, the hon. Member had a dispute with his workmen at Port Sunlight before the trust was completed, he could not exercise a single one of the rights that were secured to employers under sub-section (2,) of Clause 1, and he got no advantage from the equality of the employer which they were told was the consideration which influenced the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On the other hand, if he joined the trust and made himself one of an association of employers he at once got those facilities. There was no word in the Bill from beginning to end to cover the case of the individual employer. During the Committee Stage the Attorney-General said they were dealing in this part of the Bill, and generally, with cases of combinations and not of individuals. That observation was well founded if it were limited to Clause 1, and to other clauses which the Attorney-General might cite, but not if it were applied exclusively to the acts which for the first time were made lawful by Clause 2, sub-section (1.) As the Bill was at present framed, it would, in defiance of the whole policy of the Liberal Party, give employers every conceivable encouragement not to act singly, and not to attempt to regulate their disputes with their own workmen; it would deliberately invite them to form powerful associations which would produce on a large scale that very condition of anarchy between employers and workmen which he believed every member of the House would join with him in deprecating.

MR. BOWLES (Lambeth, Norwood)

wished to associate himself entirely with the extremely reasonable arguments of his hon. and learned friend The purpose of this Bill, they had been repeatedly assured, was to grant very considerable privileges and immunities to persons engaged in the conduct of trade disputes; but, as his hon. and learned friend had pointed out, unless the Amendment were accepted no such equality could reasonably be said to exist. The privileges of this Bill as it now stood applied to associations only, and he could not in the least understand why they were to be denied to an individual employer, merely because lie was unwilling to join some federation. He asked the House to take the case, say, of a small employer, who did not for reasons of his own belong to any great federation. What would be his position if he should find himself involved in a dispute with his workmen? His position would be one of absolute inequality. It would be impossible to exercise peaceful persuasion, or to attempt to obtain information upon his side; and, under those circumstances an employer would not be in a position of equality with his opponents. He hoped the Attorney-General would see that it was not fair to say, as would be the case if this Amendment were refused, that an employer must either make himself a member of some great and powerful federation of employers or be placed at an absolute and direct disadvantage in ease of a dispute between him and his workmen. That seemed to him to be an absolutely correct description of the effect of resisting this Amendment, and he was totally at a loss to know why the Government, and still more hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, should object to so eminently reasonable and proper a proposal.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 14, after the words 'trade union' to insert, the words 'or of an individual employer.' "—(Mr. F. E. Smith). Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.

MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS (Denbigh District)

said he could not but believe that this Amendment had been moved under an entire misapprehension as to the law at present. He was afraid hon. Members opposite, by the use of the blessed words "privilege" and "immunity" had hidden the real facts from themselves. There was no attempt in this clause or in any part of the Bill to create privileges. What the Bill did and what this clause did was to bring back the law as exceptionally applied in the case of trade unions to the general law of the country. There was no case on record in which it had been declared illegal for an individual employer to employ a picket. He did it constantly. Whenever there was a dispute he sent his foreman or agent to the men to try and induce them to break away from the strike. That was done as a common practice, and it had never been suggested that there was anything illegal in it. What had been declared illegal was for men to do it on behalf of a trade union, and that only in a recent case. Indeed, he thought in regard to this particular case hon. Members opposite ought to be exceedingly grateful to the present Liberal Government for trying to give effect to the expressed intention of the Act passed by the Conservative Government in 1875. That was all that this clause did. From 1875 to 1897, when the case of Lyons v. Wilkins was decided, it was always understood that by reason of the Act of 1875 picketing to the point of peaceful persuasion was as perfectly lawful in the case of the representatives of trade unions as in the case of the representatives of individual employers or associations of employers. This Amendment would do nothing more than declare the law as it was at present, and there was an intense desire on the part of Members sitting on the Ministerial Benches, as well as those more directly representing trade unions, that nothing should be clone of a partisan character in favour of trade unionists which should not be done equally in favour of employers; and therefore he saw no reason why this Amendment should not be accepted, unless it was on the grounds of mere draughtsmanship and construction.


said he would explain in a word what the objection was. Whether it was an objection which would prevent the Amendment being made was for the House to consider. The Amendment was not required because the object of the clause was to protect the acts of a combination, and the necessity for that protection arose by reason of the law of conspiracy. In the Act it would be found that the clause authorising peaceful picketing expressly provided that such combinations should not be subject to indictment for conspiracy at common law. It was therefore unnecessary to make provision for the protection of an individual employer whether he acted personally or representatively, because as an individual employer he was not subject to the law of conspiracy, but was only exercising the universal right of seeking to persuade workmen to return to their work. Therefore, for this reason he did not think the Amendment was necessary, and in its present form it was also objectionable because it applied to an individual employer and not to a firm. If however, the words "or firm" were inserted he should be quite willing to accept it.


said he was very grateful for what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said, and, speaking for himself he thought the suggested alteration would be an improvement.

MR. A. J. BALFOUE (City of London)

said this was a somewhat interesting point on which he would rather take the opinion of lawyers. As he understood, the Attorney-General's view was that this Amendment was quite unnecessary because an individual, whether he were a workman or an employer, could do all the acts contemplated in Clause 2 without placing himself in any difficulty as regarded the law of the land. It was only in the case of an association that any danger arose from picketing or encouraging others to picket. If the view adumbrated by the Attorney-General was the correct view of the law, and the single employer might not do, unless the Amendment were accepted, what a combination could do, he was not sure he would look upon it with the same favour as the hon. and learned Gentleman did, for the reason that it would inevitably drive employers into combination. He was one of those who differed entirely from the view of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway that this Bill only affected the interests of trade unions. He was afraid that in the industrial developments of the future there was just as much to fear from great combinations of employers as from great combinations of workmen, and it was because he did not like to see the already great powers of combinations still further increased, whether those combinations consisted of employers or of employed, that he looked with apprehension upon the general scheme of this measure. That being the general attitude he had adopted he should look with some distrust on anything that forced employers into combination. As a matter of fact employers did not, judging by the past, find it quite as easy or natural to combine as workmen, out if they compelled them to combine their combinations would be of very great power. He could not say that the power of these combinations would be greater than that of trade unions—the issue of a conflict would no doubt largely depend on general movements of public opinion, the state of trade, and other matters—but that employers' combinations would constitute a social and economic force of extraordinary power no one could doubt. Therefore, if the Amendment altered the law he should look upon it with some distrust, because it would encourage employers to combine; but if it had no other effect than to make clear the law as it stood at present he had nothing to say either for or against it.

LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)

said it appeared to him that both the Attorney-General and his hon. and learned friend had not quite appreciated the force of this Bill. The clause began: "it shall be lawful for one or more persons." Therefore, what this clause was going to do was to legalise the action of one or more persons, but only if they were "acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union." It was quite clear however that there was a third case, namely, that of acting on behalf of an employer or a firm, and that was the case which was met by this Amendment. It was not true to say that the Amendment would legalise the act of an employer acting by himself. That would be already provided for by the words "acting on their own behalf." This Amendment was required to meet the case of an employer who found it necessary, not being a member of an association, to send more than one person to carry out what he wished to be done in the way of persuading men to return to work. In such a case the man sent would not be free from liability under the clause unless some such words as these were inserted. He understood the Government was prepared to accept it, but he should not like the House to think it was an unnecessary Amendment.

MR. MYER (Lambeth, N.)

asked whether any combination of a men's union with a masters' association against an individual came under the law of conspiracy?

*MR. VERNEY (Buckinghamshire, N.)

ventured to enter a caveat against what had fallen from the late Prime Minister, who seemed to consider the larger combinations so much more dangerous than the smaller. The whole history of trade unionism was a denial of that proposition. He thought the larger a trade union the more responsible was it, and as a rule the more pacific did it become. In the old days when they were smaller and more sporadic, with only local leaders, they were far more dangerous.


I was not discussing unions of workmen, but of employers.


said he was going on to mention that the same was true of combinations of employers, which had shown themselves singularly able in recent years to conduct trade disputes by means of conciliation and arbitration. He thought it was a libel upon combinations of employers to say anything else, and those who had lived in the north of England and had watched, as he had had the opportunity of doing, these great combinations of employers and of workmen settling disputes in a peaceful manner, would rejoice in the larger combination of employers as well as of workmen, because between them they hammered out the real truth of these most difficult and complicated matters, and it was only in that way that they could look forward to their peaceful solution.


agreed with the hon. Member for North Buckinghamshire in testifying to the kindly feeling which had existed between employers and employed in the north of England. The question which the previous speaker had raised, however, did not affect the Amendment dealing with the case of the single employer. This was a most important point, and it appeared to him from the Bill that by some means the single employer had certainly been left out of the case. He, for one, favoured combination as against single employers because he felt that far more advantages were to be derived from combination as a counter-balance for the disadvantages the single employer incurred. It was only just and right, however, that single employers should be treated from the same point of view as a combination of employers. He disagreed with the hon. Member for Denbigh, who apparently considered it was an understood thing that the employer was allowed to act in the manner in which he had acted for the last twenty-five years. He (Viscount Castlereagh) would venture to say that in the future nothing should be understood, but that everything should be clearly defined in the Bill, a Bill which would place in a definite position both trade unions and combinations of employers.

*MR. CHEETHAM (Stalybridge)

trusted the Attorney-General would do whatever was needed to safeguard the rights of individual employers. It would be most unfortunate if this Bill should do anything whatever to prejudice that independent relationship which so many employers preferred to cultivate with their own people. He thought it was only fair that employers who took that view of the matter should have their position left free from doubt.

Question put, and the Amendment with the addition of the words "or firm" agreed to.


in moving to omit the words "peaceably and in a reasonable manner," said the Amendment would not require, he thought, any further remarks by him. All the arguments that could be used in support were stated yesterday, and he did not think the House would ask him to re-state the case.


said it would be necessary to divide the Amendment into two, because he understood, from the Amendment given notice of by the hon. Member for Liverpool, that he would accept part of the Attorney-General's Amendment but not the whole.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, lines 15 and 16, to leave out the words 'peaceably and.'"—(Sir John Walton.) Question proposed, "That the words 'peaceably and' stand part of the Bill.


said they had reached one of the most important clauses in the Bill, and one of the most important Amendments. While they on that side of the House had no objection whatever to trade unionists having the power of combination and peaceful persuasion in a reasonable manner if Parliament thought it right, and to the same power being extended to anyone else concerned in trade disputes, at the same time, in view of what had taken place they thought that words must be introduced to safeguard the rights of people who were to be peacefully persuaded. He of course referred to what had taken place during the last two or three months in South Wales. There had been a great deal of persuasion, but he did not think anyone would say it was either peaceful or reasonable, and unless some words of this sort were put in they would have a repetition of the scenes which he was sure they all deplored. In Committee, when an Amendment similar to this was moved by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, the learned Attorney-General made two speeches, and in the second he said— It was of course impossible to accept the Amendment because the discussion had been conducted all through on the assumption that there was this provision in the Bill as it stood. Therefore they were now faced with this problem: that the Attorney-General refused Amendments in Committee because these words were in the Bill, and yet he was now prepared to abandon the position by which he prevented Amendments being moved. He was sorry the hon. and learned Member for Reading was not in his place, because last night he made an impassioned speech in which he defended the action of the Attorney-General. During the Committee stage the hon. and learned Member was present the whole of the time, and, according to Hansard, there was a division, after the speech of the Attorney-General, and the vote of the hon. and learned Member was recorded in support of the Attorney-General. It seemed to him absolutely impossible that all these learned Gentlemen had made a mistake. The argument had been advanced that there had been this tremendous change in the Bill because it was found, on consideration, that mistakes had been made, and that ii was only a proof of obstinacy not to recognise that when a person had made a mistake he should remedy it, and alter his opinion. With that he entirely agreed, if it were a genuine mistake; but he held it was impossible on a question of law that these two learned Gentlemen should have made a mistake of such a character. He sincerely hoped the proposal of the Attorney-General even now would not be accepted, and that they would be able, if the Bill became law to ensure that the ordinary person who did not happen to agree with a trade union should have an opportunity of earning his livelihood unmolested. He was sure she Prime Minister would support him in this argument, because, speaking at Norwich on 26th October, 1904, the right hon. Gentleman used these words— I observe that some people who surely have been asleep are asking what is the Liberal policy. It seems to me an idle and an Ignorant question. We stand for liberty. Our policy is the policy of freedom. It is the policy of freedom in all things that affect the life of the people—freedom of conscience, freedom of trade, freedom of combination, freedom from injurious privileges and monopolies, freedom for each man to make the best use of the powers and faculties implanted in him—this is our policy. This clause of the Bill and the Bill itself were absolutely opposed to the last sentiment he had read from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman.


said it might be convenient to the House, as he had an Amendment on the Paper to that just moved by the Attorney-General, if he took the opportunity of making a few remarks. He shared the view that this particular issue had been discussed at great length. His desire was not to repeat the arguments which had already been fully laid before the House. But what was the significance of the Amendment now proposed by the Attorney-General? The issue was an extremely short one—whether the qualifying words "peaceably and reasonably" should be placed on the "attend" or the "purpose." A great deal of talk had taken place on both sides which had not been strictly relevant. This was in the main a legal question. The whole question was whether it was most convenient and clear, and in order that the matter might be most properly dealt with, that the qualification should be attached to "attend" or "purpose." He thought hon. Gentlemen below the gangway were labouring under some considerable misconception. It was the desire of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway as far as possible to keep themselves by this Bill from the slightest risk of coming before the Law Courts and Judge and jury It was not the place or time to consider how far their apprehensions were well founded. No individual could ensure that under no circumstances he should come before the Law Courts. Their object must be to minimise as far as they could the number of occasions on which they could come before the Courts, and as far as possible to simplify the issues on which the Court would have to pronounce. It was quite clear that they and they alone had induced the Government to make this change, because without any desire to be offensive to the Attorney-General or the Government, no one would deny that there had been negotiations and discussions between the Labour Party and the Government since the measure was in Committee, with a view to persuade the Government to adopt the proposal. The question was largely a lawyers' question, and the greatest legal authority in the country had in the meantime modified his views on the strength of representations made below the gangway. The point he was pressing upon those Gentlemen from whom pressure had emanated, was that they had changed now the issue that was going before the jury, and there was strong ground for apprehending that it had brought them more into the clutches of the jury. As the clause originally stood the only test which was a question of fact to be left to the jury, was: "Was the physical attendance of such a character as neither to be peaceable nor reasonable? That of course was not an easy thing to construe, but still juries were at least familiar with it. It was a physical fact and not the state of a man's mind. What was the position in which the jury was placed by the words of the Attorney-General's Amendment? The question for the jury now would be: "For what purpose did the picket attend?" A distinguished Judge said "the Devil himself knoweth not the mind of man." That was exactly what they were proposing to put upon a jury by this Bill. He had given the matter consideration since last night, and he was not disposed to think now that the Amendment which the hon. and learned Gentleman had proposed, with the simple exception of the omission of the word "reasonably," very materially diminished the security for order which was still left by the Bill. But he was confident it added enormously to the uncertainty of the law, and it must necessarily add to the lack of security which hon. Gentlemen below the gangway in their trade unions and organisations would have as to what was legal or not legal. Worst of all, it would throw upon juries not the disputable duty of determining what were the qualifications of the act of attendance, but the difficult duty of ascertaining, aye or no, "Was the purpose for which the picket went there a peaceable purpose or not?"

*MR. CARLILE (Hertfordshire, St. Albans)

said it seemed very regrettable that this expression "peaceably" which the Attorney-General desired to remove from the Bill should ever have found a place there. The effect of removing it was very likely to have a disastrous effect. Men would think that they might act under the powers conveyed to them in the Bill in such a way as to constitute anything but a peaceable line of action; whereas if the word had never been inserted and the Attorney-General had not changed his mind under the gentle persuasion of his friends below the gangway, there could have been no feeling of doubt on the point, and the suggestion that peaceable action was no longer essential to their conduct would never have arisen. There was no lack of sympathy in any part of the House with the right of working men to organise themselves; therefore it seemed a most disastrous thing that the Attorney-General should have so frequently changed his mind during the progress of the measure. Reference had been made to the speech of the Prime Minister at Norwich, where he said that it had been asked what was the Liberal policy? It might well have been asked at the early part of this session, what was the policy of the Liberal Government on this subject? They did not know what it was now definitely, but they knew that the word "peaceably" was to be removed with, he ventured to say, probably disastrous effects in the case of future strikes. But what the policy of the Liberal Government was going to be on this Bill before it passed through its final stages, nobody on earth would like to predict. He hoped the word "peaceably" would be retained for the reasons so excellently put before the House by the hon. Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool.


said this point was very fully dealt with last night. It was really a subject on which they had a very interesting discussion and division, and in these circumstances he would advise his hon. friends not again to divide the House.

*MR. RIDSDALE (Brighton)

said that the acceptance by the Attorney-General of the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for the Walton division of Liverpool had altered the position and rendered the retention of "in a reasonable manner" desirable, seeing that the power was given to an individual trader or firm to send men to attend a rival's place of business for the purpose of inducing men to cease work. Such an act might result in filling up the premises to the obstruction of his business. There would be a special inducement to do this if, when a strike was in progress, a firm's hands had gone out and a rival, having made his peace with the trade union, was still trading. As he read the clause money inducements might be given to the rival's workers to cease work, to the detriment of his lawful business.


said the point raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite required consideration. The Labour Members had, he thought, greatly underrated the effect which the clause would have in the case of a combination of employers. It was as much on that ground, as on other grounds, that he thought they were wrong in accepting some of the Amendments. In regard to the Amendment now before the House, the Attorney-General had argued last night that to say "action taken merely for the purpose of peacefully persuading" was quite as strong as to say that any action could be taken in a peaceable and reasonable manner. What he wanted to urge upon the Attorney-General was this. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he had given great security for the liberty of the subject by inserting the word "peacefully" before the word "persuading." Was that really so? Did peaceful persuasion differ greatly from persuasion? Was not persuasion essentially a peaceful operation? That was a matter which he thought the Attorney-General ought to consider. The hon. and learned Member for Reading on the previous evening had urged strongly that if a large number of persons went at an unseasonable hour they would never be held to be going there merely for the purpose of peacefully persuading. But the real truth was that they never would be held to be going there merely for the purpose of persuading. If they took fifty men at three o'clock in the morning and walked them to the Attorney-General's house to discuss the Trade Disputes Bill——

MR. CLOUGH (Yorkshire, W.R., Skipton)

I rise to a point of order. Is not the noble Lord addressing himself to an Amendment which is to be moved Liter on?


No, the noble Lord is strictly addressing himself to the question whether the word 'peaceably' should be retained in the clause.


said he was sorry that he had not made himself perfectly clear to the hon. Gentleman opposite. The point was whether the word 'peacefully' added anything to the use of the word 'persuading.' To say that nobody was to go except in a peaceable manner did make a considerable difference. [Cries of "No."] Some hon. Members did not agree in that, but it appeared to him to make all the difference in the world. What was the manner of going? The manner might be peaceable or not peaceable. It might be such a manner as was likely to lead to a breach of the peace, or was not likely to lead to a breach of the peace. That he took to be the meaning of the word 'peaceably.' Persuasion was essentially a peaceful ant, and to say that men were merely going for the purpose of 'peacefully persuading' did not add anything to the use of the word 'persuading,' and that was the argument he desired the Attorney-General to carefully consider. The Attorney-General had stated what he honestly believed to be the case when he said that the words he had introduced met all his prejudices, and that some such words as these were essential to the proper working of the Act. But the question was whether the addition of 'peacefully' to describe the kind of persuading did really add anything to the security which was given by the word 'persuading' alone. He had not yet heard any argument addressed to the House which convinced him that it did. If that was so, he said that this Amendment ought not to be accepted. He agreed with his right hon. friend that the Amendment had been sufficiently discussed.

Question, "That the words 'peaceably and' stand part of the clause, put, and negatived."

Amendment proposed— In page 1; lines 15 and 10, to leave out the words 'in a reasonable manner.'"—(Sir John Walton.)

Amendment agreed to.

Question put and negatived, "That the words 'in a reasonable manner' stand part of the Clause."

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY moved to insert words with the object of limiting the action of the clause to those people who were "concerned in any such trade dispute." The object of that Amendment was, he thought, very clear, and the reason he thought that these words ought to be inserted was that there was nothing in the clause to prevent people attending at the house of a relative or a workman not concerned in the dispute, where they thought non-union men resided, and when they thought that non-union men might come forward to take the place of the men on strike, and generally interfering with the ordinary business of persons who were not concerned in the dispute. When this Amendment was introduced in Committee the Attorney-General said he did not think it was at all likely that anybody would ever attend peacefully or otherwise to persuade people unless they were actually concerned in a trade dispute. It was pointed out by the noble Lord that there had been cases where people had day by day attended at houses where workmen lodged and so incommoded the owner of the lodging house that he or she had found it impossible to carry on business unless the obnoxious workmen were turned out of the house. That had actually been done, and he believed there was no clause in the Bill which would prevent such abuses. [An HON. MEMBER: Yes.] He was glad to hear that, because that was a safeguard which he was afraid had not been provided. There was also the case where it was supposed that men would be brought from a distance to fill the vacancies caused by those who were on strike. Under this Bill there would be nothing to prevent a large number of men from going to a town which was not at all concerned in the strike, and they might so intimidate everybody in the town that nobody would dare to come forward to take work in the place where the dispute had arisen. He thought that would be a very bad precedent to establish, and he hoped that that was not the object of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, because if such an object was desired it was in the direction of establishing a tyranny which had never before existed in this country, and which he believed did not exist in any country in the world. They must not forget that people were sometimes led away by excitement. When they had a large crowd of people assembled they were moved by passion. There was some perverse feeling that swept over them, and they did things which under other circumstances they would not have thought of. The Attorney-General had found that the arguments which he used in regard to these words last August were mistakes, and that in many cases he had given a wrong decision in regard to them. He thought that this was a case in which a wrong decision was given, and he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman was prepared to-day to accept the Amendment. Unless it could be shown that the evils which he feared were not likely to arise, and that the picket would not be applied to people who were not concerned in any way in a dispute, he was afraid he must trouble the House to go to a division, for he considered this a very important point. It did not in any way affect the principle of the Bill, or the powers which were to be given to trade unions in regard to people concerned in a dispute, and, therefore, he hoped that he would have some support from hon. Gentlemen below the gangway. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 16, after the word 'person,' to insert the words 'concerned in any such trade dispute.'"—(Sir Frederick Banbury.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.

MR. BOWLES (Lambeth, Norwood)

thought that this Amendment raised a question of very real and genuine practical importance. His hon. friend had suggested several questions which ought to be considered by the hon. and learned Attorney-General before the Bill passed. Under the clause as it now stood it would be possible, at any rate lawful, to terrorise a considerable community into supporting associations of workmen engaged in industrial disputes. He did not think that powers such as those should be given by a side-wind in a clause concerned merely with trade disputes. Again, under the clause as it stood, it was definitely enacted by Parliament that it was lawful for one or more persons acting in their own behalf or in behalf of trade unions in furthering a trade dispute, to attend in any manner they chose, so long as the purpose of their attendance was peaceful, not only at the place of work of a man not directly concerned in the trade dispute, but at his place of residence for the purpose of coercing his wife and children. Every student of industrial warfare knew that that was a kind of pressure that had been brought to bear. Definite cases arising out of the Taff Vale dispute were to be found in the Appendix to the Report of the Royal Commission. He asked whether it was reasonable and proper to legalise such procedure? He was genuinely apprehensive that that kind of thing would be done if this Bill passed without the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. He did not believe that it would be done by any hon. Member below the gangway, or by responsible trade union leaders, but they all knew that some trade unionists did get out of hand, and they were also told that the control of the trade union leaders over such men was of the shallowest and flimsiest character. He thought that it was not too much to ask that the Attorney-General should consider whether something ought not to be done to prevent what must be regarded as a deplorable, horrible, and unnecessary practice. He begged to second the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 16, after the word 'person,' to insert the words 'concerned in any such trade dispute.' "—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)


said that this was the first time he had intervened in the debates on this stage of the Bill, but he wished to draw attention to the words in the Act of 1875, passed by a Conservative Government. The clause in that Act dealing with picketing said, "or attends near a house or a place where a person resides," should be guilty of an offence. Those words were used without any limitation, and he wanted to know how far that law had been obeyed. From thirty years' experience of Yorkshire and Lancashire since the passing of the Act he could say that he had never heard of a single prosecution under that section. They must rely on past experience, and not introduce words into this clause which would be of no service. This was not a question of legal theory but of practical experience.


said that he was obliged to the hon. Baronet for having given the House a plain and conclusive argument against the apprehensions expressed by the mover and seconder of the Amendment. He was glad that the hon. Baronet had reminded the House that it was not only the duty of persons engaged in trade disputes to conduct picketing operations in the peaceful manner enjoined by this clause, but that it was enjoined by the provisions of the existing criminal law. The Act of 1875 showed that if the operation of picketing was conducted with the view of inducing some person against his will to do or abstain from doing some act which he was entitled to do or abstain from doing, then that operation became a criminal offence, and was liable to punishment. Therefore, there was a very stringent part of the criminal law which was quite sufficient to prevent the operation of picketing being conducted on oppressive, tyrannous, or coercive lines. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London thought that the clause as it now stood might be used in some op- pressive manner by permitting the picketing, not at the house where the person sought to be interviewed resided, but at the house of someone else who was not interested in the trade dispute. He agreed with the hon. Baronet that that would be oppressive and an abuse of the right of picketing; but it was obvious that the picketers were not in that case actuated by a desire to influence the person by peaceful persuasion, either to work or not to work, but were using their influence for some other purpose which was already covered by the criminal law. For these reasons he thought the Amendment was unnecessary.


thought the Attorney-General and his hon. friend the Member for Wigan were under a misapprehension as to the effect of this clause on Section 7 of the Act of 1875. What he feared was that under cover of this clause it would be lawful for a large number of people to come outside the house of any man, and that the mere presence of such a crowd would lend to intimidate the man through his wife and children. Would any hon. Member say that if a large crowd, who might be peacefully assembled, outside a house where a woman was alone, that would not produce an effect of terror on her mind? The question was whether the clause would not make a very grave change in the law as it now stood. As he understood, the Attorney-General did not think that it would make any important change in the existing law. He did not agree, but believed that it would destroy the watching and besetting section of the Act of 1875. That was an intelligible section. It excepted certain things from the provisions as to "watching and besetting" but otherwise it left the law as to "watching and besetting" as it was before The effect of this clause would be to destroy the law as to "watching and besetting" under that section altogether, because it enacted that it should be lawful for one or more persons to do both those things.


With the view to peaceful persuasion, not with the intention of coercion.


With a view to compel a certain act and with a view to compel people to do that which they did not want to do. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No!"] Then it was a question of the meaning of the word "compel." He would use a neutral word. They certainly wished to induce and they endeavoured to induce with a certain show of force.


The introductory words of Clause 7 are that if you compel another person, that is to say, if you, with the intention of coercing and not with the intention of peaceful persuasion, watch a house you are criminally liable.


said that if the hon. and learned Attorney-General was right the words at the end of the sub-section would have no meaning whatever, because to attend for the purpose of giving or receiving information could not be for the purpose of compelling any action, and yet the Legislature said it was necessary to put in those words for the purpose of legalising the giving and obtaining of information. The meaning of the section was that persons were not to go in large crowds to a man's house and beset his house in order, whether they called it "compel" or "induce," to lead him to take a certain action. They were not to beset another man's house unless they did it with "lawful authority." That was the meaning of this section, and now the Government proposed to say that it should be lawful for the workmen to do certain things which they would not previously have been authorised to do. What did they say it was lawful to do? They said it was lawful to go with any number of men to a man's house or the place where he was with a view of giving or obtaining information. That was what they were going to enact, and unless they put in some limiting words it would be a very dangerous enactment, because it would legalise the attendance of large crowds at any person's house. They were saying really that their object was to allow people to peacefully persuade. He believed that the object was always to "peacefully persuade." Nobody set out with the intention of causing or committing a breach of the peace, but when they went in a large crowd the breach of the; peace followed later. If they were allowed to go in large numbers to another man's house, so long as they went with the intention of "peacefully persuading" a person to work or to abstain from work, they were protected. That was the whole section, and he contended that it was a very dangerous section to enact. He trusted hon. Members below the gangway would believe him when he said that the section was dangerous to whatever class it applied. It was not dangerous only when it was applied to the working classes. He thought the working classes were capable of using their freedom as well as any other class, but it was a dangerous thing to say to any class "You are entitled to go in large numbers if you go with the intention of 'peacefully persuading.'" If they were going to enact that men might go to a place where a man was or where his wife and children were, they were going to confer a privilege upon a particular class which ought not to be given. He therefore thought that the Amendment of the hon. Baronet ought to be accepted.


assured the noble Lord that he was labouring under a delusion as to this clause. It did not legalise anything which was not lawful now.


Will the hon. Member for Clitheroe say that this section does not legalise anything which is now unlawful?


I think the hon. Member for Clitheroe, if it is not presumption on my part, will entirely agree with what I say.

MR. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, Clitheroe)

It all depends on what you are going to say.


said the grievance which trade unions had was this. Certain Judges chose to narrow down find restrict the legal right to attend for the purpose of merely obtaining or communicating information. This section purported to do by statute what was hitherto the practice and to give to trade unions not only the power of obtaining and communicating information but also the right of "peacefully persuading." Apart from that last proviso the law remained precisely where it was before. That was to say, supposing trade unionists attended outside a, person's house in a noisy or disorderly manner, it did not require the magic of the word "peacefully" to prevent the Court or the justices from dealing with such action. The word "peacefully" was quite innocuous. It made no difference in the law even as to the obtaining or the communication of information. It was perfectly true that some of the Judges had held that the attendance must be limited to the purpose of obtaining or communicating information, and that that was a very grievous and harsh decision against the operations of trade unions. But that kind of decision was recently reviewed by the Court of Appeal whose decision was final, as there was no appeal to the House of Lords, and the Court of Appeal held that the view taken by some of the Judges was too narrow, and that the rights of trade unions or of a picket were not limited to communicating or obtaining information. It was held that if they behaved themselves in a reasonable manner they might go to the extent of "peaceful persuasion." He could assure his hon. friends that it was their own imagination that caused them to think there was some hidden and sinister meaning in this sub-section, and that under it a trade union would be enabled to go down and cause a breach of the peace. Every safeguard for the purpose of preventing any unlawfulness would continue.


said that the course of this debate had increased the pride he had always felt in his own profession and the resourcefulness of its members. The hon. and learned Gentleman and other hon. and learned Gentlemen had found salvation on these issues at a late stage of the discussion.


Will the hon. and learned Member excuse me, I remain in status quo ante.


Do I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not vote in favour of the amending words "in a reasonable manner."


No, I was always in favour of the words "peaceful persuasion," and always thought that the use of the words "in a reasonable manner" was a trap.


said that as regarded the hon. and learned Gentleman he withdrew what he said, but he could not do so as regarded other hon. and learned Members. As to the particular question before the House he ventured to think that laymen must be put in some difficulty. The hon. and learned Gentleman had just told them in terms that this clause legalised nothing which was not now already legal.


I said it legalises nothing which was unlawful.


said they did not legalise by statute things that were always lawful unless they had a great deal of time at their disposal. The point which he sought to emphasise, although he was an extremely humble member of the legal profession, was that the contention of the hon. and learned Member was in consistent with the admissions of the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General had said on a previous occasion that if they were going to legalise the right of a number of persons to assemble with a view of persuading others, that right should be restricted in some manner by being placed under some reasonable restraint. That was what they wanted. The whole issue on the Amendment of the hon. Baronet was-what was the effect of this clause as now amended? On a previous occasion, the Attorney-General laid it down expressly that this clause legalised the right of people to assemble to do what otherwise they would not be allowed to do. He left the issue on that point, all he said being that the responsible legal advisers of His Majesty's Government had said that this clause legalised something which was not legal before. The hon. Baronet who moved this Amendment was reasonable in his contention that some limitation ought to be introduced into the Bill to prevent picketing at the house of a person not interested in the dispute. No one who had followed the course of recent strikes could deny that apprehension in that regard was justified, because those who let lodgings in the neighbourhood in which strikes had occurred had undoubtedly had pressure brought to bear upon them not to let their lodgings to certain men. He did not know whether that could be called intimidation or coercion. But everybody knew that great difficulties had been put in the way of non-unionists in consequence of that pressure when they wished to obtain lodgings. Therefore, it seemed to him that the hon. Baronet's contention was well founded. Let them consider the kind of thing that could be done by a number of men under this clause. It would be lawful for the first time, if this clause was not limited, for people to go in crowds to the house or place of business of a man or woman not implicated in the particular trade dispute, to the woman letting lodgings, or to the tradesman supplying the workmen and their wives and children with the necessaries of life, with results which might be anticipated.


It is lawful now under the Act of 1875.


said he thought that view had been discussed already. He should have thought it was unlawful in the sense in which it was enacted by this Bill. He merely wished to say in reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman that it was barely possible for lawyers to discuss every detail. He would only say now, not on the directly legal point, that if this Bill was passed in its present shape without the limitations sought to be inserted in it by the hon. Baronet the junior Member for London, it was making legal, pressure which was not legal before.


said this was a difficult point, because lawyers wore not always clear or agreed upon it, and when the experts were both obscure and contradictory the unfortunate layman was placed in a very embarrassing position. One hon. Gentleman had indicated by his interruption, and by his views, that it was not relative to the question at this moment to consider whether the clause did or did not add to the number of things which could be done. He evidently misapprehended the main point before the House. If the clause did add to the number of things that could be done, it became a matter of real importance that they should limit the number of people by whom these things could be done. It surely was a reasonable thing to say, if their power was increased, it was quite proper at all events to see that the class of individuals on whom pressure could be brought should be strictly limited to those concerned in the dispute. But did this clause add or did it not to the number of things which combinations of masters and men might do? There, again, there was an absolute divergence of opinion in the lawyers on both sides. His hon. friend the Member for Wigan maintained the opinion that this did not add anything to the powers given by the Act of 1875. The hon. and learned Member for Durham agreed with his hon. friend in that view. But that was not the opinion of other learned friends who had spoken on the opposite side of the House. It was not the view of hon. Gentlemen on the Government side of the House or of the hon. Member for Clitheroe. A clear decision on this point was vitally necessary. If this clause left the law of 1875 simply as it was before, then he admitted that the main argument of limiting the number of persons lost most of its foundation, but if what the hon. and learned Gentleman said was true, then why bring in Section 4? If this did not modify the law and give power to the trade unions, why were the trade unions struggling for it, and why was this House wasting its time in rendering lawful that which was lawful at present? He thought they ought to have some clear explanation on that point. If the clause did not alter the Act of 1875 there was a strong presumption in favour of it if it could be shown that the Act of 1875 had not led to any abuse. He was not skilled in this subject himself; he had no knowledge either first or second hand. His hon. friend had said that this clause of the Act worked perfectly, that there had been no intimidation, no interference with the subject, and no undue pressure. But that was denied by the hon. Gentleman who followed with the details of trade disputes in which these things occurred. They had therefore two questions raised upon which they had a right to have a little more light thrown. First of all, there was the legal question whether or not this clause added to the power already possessed by trade unions. The second question was whether there had been in the thirty-one years that had elapsed since 1875 any evidence that the power given to the trade unions had been abused, whether it could be said that the Act of 1875 had worked well and had been adequate to prevent that interference with the subject the liberty of whom everybody desired to safeguard. These were two questions upon which he thought some further information was required.


said he wished to make this clause quite clear as the representatives of labour understand it. They asked for a re-statement of the law in the sense in which it was understood in the Acts of 1871 and 1875. When the hon. and learned Gentleman said that this did not add anything to the present law he disagreed with him. An interpretation had been placed upon the present law which had so limited the powers of trade unions that it was absolutely impossible for them, as the law was given to them to-day by the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, to peacefully persuade. As trade unionists they had been told by their legal advisers that that was the position under the decisions that had been given. They asked for those decisions to be swept aside and that they might be put into the position in which they were in 1875. These legal questions had not been raised by them; they had been raised by the legal gentlemen who interpreted the law. All they asked for was a re-statement of the law as they understood it to be and as everybody else understood it to be up to six years ago.


said the right hon. Gentleman, who had complained of the obscurity and contradiction in the legal minds, was probably an

expert in contradiction and obscurity. This was an exceedingly difficult question, and probably the contradiction had come about because of the political heat which had been allowed to clog the minds of lawyers. But might he say that the Labour Commission, which sat for several years, and which reported in 1894, said, in express terms, that the unions had so conducted themselves as fully to justify the rights conferred on them in 1871. Moreover, they said the conduct of the labour organisations had been such as to justify an extension of those powers. They proposed to clothe the unions with a larger legal personality than that which they had hitherto enjoyed. It was untrue to say that since the unions had been clothed with legality; that we had had anything in this country I approximating to the old condition of things as typified in the case of Sheffield, when the trade unions were secret societies. The proposal of the Government did nothing more than give effect to the expressed intentions of this House when the Act of 1875 was passed into law. It became necessary because of one decision only, that of Lyon v. Wilkin, where the Judges laid it down that peaceful persuasion was not legalised by Section 7 of the Act of 1875. All that this clause did was to say in express terms that peaceful persuasion was legal, as well as getting and receiving information. For this reason he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 50; Noes 298. (Division List No. 367.)

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir A. F. Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers- Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Fell, Arthur Percy, Earl
Balcarres, Lord Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Balfour, Rt. Hn A.J.(City Lond.) Fletcher, J. S. Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester) Forster, Henry William Salter, Arthur Clavell
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Hamilton, Marquess of Starkey, John R.
Bowles, G. Stewart Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Bull, Sir William James Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. Thornton, Percy M.
Butcher, Samuel Henry Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) Turnour, Viscount
Carlile, E. Hildred Hunt, Rowland Valentia, Viscount
Castlereagh, Viscount Lambton, Hon. Frederick Win. Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.)
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W. Liddell, Henry Younger, George
Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.) Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R.
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Magnus, Sir Philip TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. F. E. Smith.
Courthope, G. Loyd Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Dalrymple, Viscount Nicholson, Win. G.(Petersfield)
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Acland, Francis Dyke Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Laidlaw, Robert
Ainsworth, John Stirling Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster)
Alden, Percy Elibank, Master of Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Allen, A. Acland (Christch.) Erskine, David C. Lambert, George
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Evans, Samuel T. Lamont, Norman
Ashton, Thomas Gair Everett, R. Lacey Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Astbury, John Meir Faber, G. H. (Boston) Layland- Barratt, Francis
Atherley-Jones, L. Fenwick, Charles Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Ferens, T. R. Lehmann, R. C.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Ferguson, R. C. Munro Levy, Maurice
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Flynn, James Christopher Lewis, John Herbert
Beale, W. P. Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry Lloyd-George. Rt. Hon. David
Beauchamp, E. Freeman-Thomas, Freeman Lough, Thomas
Beaumont, Hn. W.C.B (Hexham Fuller, John Michael F. Lundon, W.
Beck, A. Cecil Fullerton, Hugh Macdonald, J M.(Falkirk Bg'hs.)
Bell, Richard Gibb, James (Harrow) Macnamara. Dr. Thomas J.
Bellairs, Carlyon Gill, A. H. Macpherson, J. T.
Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp't Ginnell, L. MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)
Berridge. T. H. D. Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John MacVeigh. Chas. (Donegal, E.)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Glendinning. R. G. M'Callum, John M.
Billson, Alfred Glover, Thomas M'Crea, George
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.) Goddard, Daniel Ford M'Micking, Major G.
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) Grant, Corrie Maddison, Frederick
Bowerman, C. W. Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Mallet, Charles E.
Brace, William Greenwood, Hamar (York) Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Bramsdon, T. A. Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Marnham, F. J.
Branch, James Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Meagher, Michael
Brigg, John Gulland, John W. Meedan, Patrick A.
Brodie, H. C. Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Menzies, Walter
Brooke. Stopford Hall, Frederick Molteno, Percy Alport
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs. Leigh) Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis Money, L. G. Chiozza
Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir JT(Cheshire) Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Montagu, E. S.
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) Montgomery. H. G.
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs) Harrington, Timothy Mooney, J. J.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Harwood, George Murnaghan, George
Burnyeat. W. J. D. Halsam, James (Derbyshire) Murphy, John
Buxton. Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas. Haslam, Lewis (Monmonth) Murray, James
Byles, William Pollard Hazel, Dr. A. E. Myer, Horatio
Cameron, Robert Hedges, A. Paget Nannetti, Joseph P.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Helme, Norval Watson Napier, T. B.
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard K. Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)
Chance, Frederick William Henderson, J.M. (Aberdeen, W.) Nicholls, George
Cheetham, John Frederick Henry, Charles S. Nicholson, Chas. N.(Doncast'r.)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.) Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Clarke, C. Goddard Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Nussey, Thomas Willans
Cleland, J. W. Higham, John Sharp O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)
Clough, William Hobart, Sir Robert O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Clynes, J. R. Hodge, John O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)
Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W. Hogan, Michael O'Grady. J.
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Hooper, A. G. O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. O'Malley, William
Cooper, G. J. Horniman, Emslie John O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Corbett, C.H.(Sussex, E Grinst'd Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Farker, James (Halifax)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Hudson, Walter Partington, Oswald
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Hutton, Alfred Eddison Paul, Herbert
Craig, Herb. J. (Tynemouth) Hyde, Clarendon Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Crooks, William Idris, T. H. W. Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Crosfield, A. H. Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Crossley, William J. Jackson, R. S. Pollard, Dr.
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Jacoby, James Alfred Powell. Sir Francis Sharp
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Jenkins, J. Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Delany, William Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Priestley, W. E. B.(Bradford, E)
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Jones, Sir D. Brnmuor (Swansea) Rainy, A. Rolland
Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras, N. Jones, Leif (Appleby) Raphael, Herbert H.
Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.) Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Dodd, W. H. Jowett, F. W. Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')
Donelan, Captain A. Kearley, Hudson E. Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Duckworth, James Kekewich, Sir George Redmond, William (Clare)
Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness) Kelley, George D. Rees, J. D.
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Kennedy, Vincent Paul Richards, Thos. W.(Monm'th)
Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mp'n) Stanger, H. Y. Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent
Richardson, A. Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.) Wardle, George J.
Rickett, J. Compton Steadman, W. C. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Ridsdale, E. A. Stewart, Halley (Greenock) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Roberts, Chas. H. (Lincoln) Strachey, Sir Edward Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Straus, B. S. (Mile End) Waterlow, D. S.
Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee) Stuart, James (Sunderland) Watt, H. Anderson
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Sullivan, Donal Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Robinson, S. Summerbell, T. Weir, James Galloway
Rogers, F. E. Newman Sutherland, J. L. White, George (Norfolk)
Rose, Charles Day Taylor, John W. (Durham) White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Rowlands, J. Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Runciman, Walter Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland) Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester) Thorne, William Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n
Scott, A.H.(Ashton-under-Lyne Torrance, Sir A. M. Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Sears, J. E. Toulmin, George Williamson, A.
Seely, Major J. B. Trevelyan, Charles Philips Wilson, Hn. CH. W. (Hull, W.)
Shackleton, David James Ure, Alexander Wilson, P. W. (St. Paneras, S.)
Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.) Verney, F. W. Wilson, W. T- (Westhoughton)
Shipman, Dr. John G. Villiers, Ernest Amherst Winfrey, R.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John Vivian, Henry Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Sloan, Thomas Henry Wadsworth, J. Young, Samuel
Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Waldron, Laurence Ambrose Yoxall, James Henry
Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Snowden, P. Walsh, Stephen TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Soames, Arthur Wellesley Walters, John Tudor
Soares, Ernest J. Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Spicer, Sir Albert Walton, Joseph Bamsley)

MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University) moved an Amendment to leave out the words "resides or." He under- stood the object of this Bill was first to safeguard in certain ways the funds of trade unions in the case of peaceful picketing. It had been clearly repudiated on both sides of the House that anything approaching intimidation or violence was to be legalised in any shape or form. The point in his Amendment was that if they legalised the right to go in large numbers to a person's residence for the purpose of peaceful persuasion it was a right that would be exceedingly liable to abuse by those who were trying to abuse their rights; and, secondly, even in the case of those who did not intend to abuse their rights it would be most easily misunderstood by the persons against whom this well-intentioned right was directed. No good reason could be shown why this right to attend in largo numbers at a person's house should be legalised. He could quite understand men going to a workplace or other place where a person might happen to be going or coming; that he would imagine to be perfectly peaceable picketing; but for a large number to attend at a man's house did not come within the same category. A case which happened a few days ago, and which had been referred to in the House with the greatest reprehension, afforded a very good instance of the way in which this right might be abused, however anxious persons might be to prevent that abuse. The case was one in which it was thought to be desirable to persuade a man to pay up arrears to his union, and some 200 or 300 men wont round his house and scenes of violence ensued. No one justified what occurred on that occasion, and he was only alluding to it as an illustration of the way in which this right might be grossly abused.


The only question is, would this Bill, if passed, allow such things as that?


said he quite agreed with the hon. Member that that was the point. As far as he read the report of that case it was perfectly possible that the men who went to this man's home had no intention of violence. It was like a row at a football match; they began perfectly peaceably, but something excited the mob and, as he knew from experience, the match ended in disorder. Although it was a joking matter when it concerned football, when it came to going to a man's house where his wife and family resided, it was a serious thing. He was sure the majority of Members did not wish this right to be abused in any shape or form, but if men went in large numbers to another man's house and such conduct was legalised, though the attendance there might begin peaceably it was liable to, and almost inevitably would, end in intimidation and violence. [An HON. MEMBER: Punish the offender.] What was the use of punishing them after the offence had occurred?

MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorganshire, Mid)

You cannot punish them before the offence occurs.


said they could prevent it. The hon. and learned Member must know that it could he pre vented in many ways. They could prevent it by the ordinary machinery of law. The point was whether they were going to prevent the doing of an act which might, and was exceedingly likely to end in violence, and which, if participated in by large numbers, might in any case be mistaken for intimidation. [An HON. MEMBER. Why not apply the same thing to football matches?] It was because of the protective legislation of football associations that exceedingly good order was kept on the football grounds at the present time. He strongly appealed to the House that it was not a question of trade union funds, but a question that affected the population at large when any kind of trade dispute was proceeding, and he submitted that if they legalised attendance in large numbers at a man's house they would be going perilously near legalising, if not intimidation, a state of affairs which might very likely end in intimidation j and possibly in violence.


seconded the Amendment. He was I one of those who believed that peaceful persuasion and picketing were necessary to carry on the objects which trade unions had in view, but he thought they should be limited to business hours and the neighbourhood of the place at which the person to be persuaded worked. It appeared to him that as the matter was connected with a man's work or business the persuasion which was carried on should be at or near that place, and not at the place where the man resided. Moreover he maintained that to allow a large crowd to go to a man's residence was to interfere with the liberty of the individual. A man should feel that in his own home he would at least be immune from persuasion just as a large body of trade unionists were claiming to be immune from prosecution. It was obvious that, if peaceful persuasion were carried on to a large extent at a mans house, there was some factor there which was likely to make that persuasion more successful, and in the words of the Member for Norwood, he maintained that it would be an attempt to terrorise the individual through the medium of his wife and family. On this subject he appealed to the Labour Party. It was to their interest that these words should be omitted. He knew that the Leaders of the Labour Party were as anxious as anyone that trade disputes should be conducted in a reasonable manner and that no harm or violence should result from peaceful persuasion. If these words were included in the clause it would leave open to trade unionists engaged in peaceful persuasion an opportunity, even though they started out with no intention of violence, to break the law. Personally ho had every confidence in the Leaders of the Labour Party, but he thought they were inclined to overestimate the power they had over their followers, and he maintained that if this Bill came into force it would necessarily decrease that power. There was a certain unruly section in every trade, and in fact, in every walk of life, and it was obvious that if these men felt that they would not be embroiling their leaders by any act on their part the authority those leaders had hitherto exercised over their followers would naturally decline. He therefore urged the Member for Clitheroe, whom he considered to be vitally in charge of this Bill, to consider this Amendment as one which could not under any circumstances do harm to the objects the hon. Member had in view, but which would tend to secure that which Labour Leaders should have, and he firmly believed had in view, namely, the liberty of the individual in his own home.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 17, to leave out the words 'resides or.' "—(Mr. Rawlinson.) Question proposed, "That the words 'resides or' stand part of the Bill.


said the Government could not accept the Amendment. This clause was to legalise not molestation or intimidation, but simply peaceful persuasion. All the speeches on this clause he had heard ignored altogether that fact. There was no intention on the part of the Government to repeal the law as to molestation or intimidation. He agreed that it was only intended to give effect to what trade unionists had believed for the last thirty years was the intention of the law.

SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD (Somerset, Wellington)

said he attached a great deal of importance to these words. There were many cases in which people who worked in factories in small country towns would reside in villages perhaps three or four miles from the town. In the town if there was any riot or trouble outside a man's house there were plenty of policeman within call, but this was not so in the case of country villages, where a, man and his family might be liable to serious intimidation. If this Amendment was defeated he sincerely trusted that the suffragettes would form a trade union, and endeavour to peacefully persuade every Member of the present Government.


wanted to make it perfectly clear what this proposal was. He desired to emphasise this fact from this circumstance that the Chief Whip of the Party opposite had spoken in favour of the Amendment. It was an extraordinary circumstance that they should now have, after the general election, from the Benches opposite, an Amendment which would take away from trade unions a right which they had possessed since 1875. Ever since that year it had been lawful to attend at the residence of any person for the purpose of communicating information in a peaceable way. That right had been enjoyed for a generation and it had never been abused. Surely the general election, whatever else it meant, did not mean that they should take away from trade unions rights which they had so long enjoyed. He sincerely trusted that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would be able to persuade his followers to go with him into the lobby in favour of the Amendment, and then the country would know that the Opposition were not fighting for an extension of the rights of trade unions, but for the repeal of privileges and rights which they had enjoyed for a generations.


said this was not a question of inserting certain words but of retaining them. He desired to point out to his hon. friends that the words they were now dealing with were the same as those in the Act of 1875. Those who referred to the Hansard reports for that period would find ample authority in support of that Act, which was supported by statesmen possessing extraordinary power and influence in the country. He did not think it had been fully realised what the effect would be if these words were removed, and he was sure the law could not remain in that state. It would, therefore, become necessary to substitute other words. As far as he was concerned he could not be a party to any reactionary proceeding such was as involved in this Amendment. It appeared to him that if there was to be a riot following peaceable proceedings the law was strong enough to deal with it as a riot, but that was a totally different and independent question. He reminded the House that before the Standing Committee on Law last year they agreed to these words.

*MR. CLAVELL SALTER (Hants, Basingstoke)

said he always listened with great respect to the opinions expressed by the hon. Member for Wigan, but he was inclined to think that his speech had been delivered under some little misapprehension. He was sure that the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Mid Glamorgan was one which made it necessary that a few words should be said from the Opposition Benches before a division on this important Amendment was taken. For his part he supported the Amendment with his whole heart, because he considered it to be a matter of very great importance. It would come to be important when the vast new powers which this Bill gave began to be put into operation by the trade unions. If there was one thing which an Englishman regarded with strong feelings, and in regard to which he was likely to take the law into his own hands when deprived of the protection of the law, it was intrusion and compulsion brought to bear upon him in the privacy of his own home. There was no need for this section, and it had only been introduced at the bidding of the Labour Party, for it took away the protection hitherto afforded by the English law against nuisance, and against undue interference with a man's personal rights. As the common law stood they might go to a man's house or to his place of business, accost him, and persuade him, and within certain limits they might interfere and obstruct, but they must not go beyond the point which was known as reasonable interference; and if they interfered with a man's home or his rights, or with his business beyond that which an Englishman could be expected to endure he was protected by the common law. This Bill was being passed to take away from him those rights. The hon. and learned Member for Mid Glamorgan had confused the issue by dragging in a reference to criminal proceedings and the criminal law. It was true that long ago Parliament provided that it should be a criminal offence to watch and beset a man's house, but what had that to do with this section? He was speaking of the invaluable right which every Englishman enjoyed to go to the Courts of law and say, "My liberty is being interfered with; my privacy is being invaded; I am being obstructed and coerced beyond that which it is fair or right to expect me to endure, and I ask this Court to issue an order saying that this must stop." That was a right which he was certain was not lightly regarded in this House. If the section passed as it stood men would be deprived of their common law rights. The Amendment asked the House to say that as regarded his home a man ought to be left with the same degree of common law protection as he had at the present time, and if ever there was a proposition put forward which deserved the serious attention of the House of Commons and which was likely to be regarded outside as an important matter, it was the taking away of a man's rights to protect himself from intrusion and coercion in the privacy of his home. It was not so much a question as to what effect this proposal would have upon employers or workmen, banded or unhanded; it was a question as to the effect it would have upon the considerable residue of the people. Hon. Members below the gangway were no more representative of the people as a whole than any brewer or railway director in this House. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] The Labour Members were in Parliament to represent to the best of their ability — and well they did it — the narrow pecuniary interests of their class. [HON. MEMBERS: What about railway directors? What about brewers? Why are lawyers here?] He was not in Parliament to protect the interests of employer or employed, but to protect the interests of the general body of the people. ["Oh."] The powers of interference by coercion given by this Bill were much wider than the House had yet realised, and those powers were not to be restricted in any way. Was it not a fact known to experience that the tendency of boycotting was to spread to other people indirectly concerned? They intimidated A. to force him to yield to their wishes. He resisted their coercion, and what was the next step? They coerced in a similar manner those who were dear to him, or traded with him, or were in a position to bring influence to bear upon him. They first coerced A., and then B. to get A. to yield, and then C. to put pressure upon B. Was it not the common experience in this country that once powers of this kind were instituted, their effect never stopped at the original victim of the persecution, but spread from one to another, with the result that not merely was the workman intimidated, or the parties to the dispute, but also those who dealt with them, and so the vicious circle extended. It was because the powers given by this Bill would affect the daily life, not only of employers, but also of the great mass of the people of the country, that he asked the House whether it would not be right to exempt from the operation of these powers a man's home in which he lived. This proposal was very different from anything suggested in the Report of the Royal Commission, which was so eagerly quoted when it supported the proposals of the Government. Why was the Amendment resisted? What was the real objection to leaving a man in his home with the same protection that he had at the present moment? The reason was that the object of this section was to coerce, Its supporters did not want to reduce the coercive effect of the section. If they could bring this pressure to bear they would be able to coerce more effectively than if a man could fly to his own home and feel secure there. It was precisely for the reason that he wanted to protect men in their own homes that he should heartily support this Amendment.

*MR. COURTHOPE (Sussex, Eye)

said the hon. and learned Member for Mid-Glamorgan had contended that this Amendment would deprive trade unionists of a right which they now possessed. He did not think he was right in that contention. It did not interfere with the right which it was necessary a trade unionist should have to attend at a person's residence with the object of obtaining or giving information which might otherwise be impossible. But that was not necessary in the case of peaceful persuasion. [An HON. MEMBER: It is just the same.] As long as a man stayed at home what harm was he doing to trade unionists? There was not the slightest rhyme or reason why trade unionists should seek a right to attend at a person's home for the purpose of persuading him to stay there. Let the right they were dealing with be confined to the occasions when he came to work. If he was an outworker, and worked at home, he would still come within the remaining words of the clause. The words in this section which it was desired to amend were taken from the Bill of last year which was introduced by the hon. Member for Spen Valley, and he should like to call the attention of the House to the exceedingly strong wording of the Report of the Royal Commission against these particular words. The Report stated— However peaceable the original object may be with which people go to a man's house in order to persuade him, he cannot tell that the result will be peaceable. He may feel that they may turn from a peaceable to a violent object at any moment. There was no doubt that in the majority of cases a man would be intimidated, and for that reason he should be protected. The Solicitor-General for Scotland had told them that there had been no horrors since 1875, although it had been lawful since that year to attend at a man's residence. He must point out that they had never been allowed to attend for the purpose of persuasion. If they wanted to give or obtain information they did not need a crowd in order to do so, but trade unionists might, think it needed a crowd to exercise persuasion. Not only might a serious nuisance be caused, but the fear of violence to wife, children, or property, would amount to intimidation. For these reasons a man's home should be protected. There could be no possible reason for this section. It gave no right to trade unionists except the right of intimidation, and that was a right which they professed they did not require. He hoped the right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench would see that they were under this section legalising intimidation, because whether there was intimidation or not, depended, not upon the object of the people attending, but upon the impression produced upon the mind of the person at whose home they attended.

MR. CLYNES (Manchester, N.E.)

said it had been stated that the retention of the words under discussion would in no way change the law, but in spite of that statement arguments had been submitted as though the retention of the words would considerably alter legislation. They had heard a great deal about sympathy with the working classes, and much about the sacredness of his home, but he declined to accept that sympathy as genuine so long as he saw cases like that which occurred recently, in which hired bailiffs and all the instrutments of the law were used to turn from their homes men, women, and children because a workman would not conform to certain conditions of service. The cries of the women and children of England did not appear to reach the ears of hon. Gentlemen who taunted Labour Members with representing a narrow, pecuniary interest. It had been said that there was great danger in permitting people to assemble in large numbers, and that it would lead to some offence. There was risk in permitting large bodies of people to assemble at a football match, but his hon. friends did not suggest legislation to prevent people so assembling. They knew that even now employers had secret means of influencing and persuading people at their homes. In these matters trade unionists only desired to have equal opportunities with the employer. The wicked workman in connection with this question of picketing had been frequently held up as a man who desired to break the law at every opportunity for his own purpose. [Cries of "No."] That was not the way the case was presented, but that was the effect of the arguments used. They required nothing more than equality of opportunity with the employer. Employers sent their managers and foremen and agents to the homes of the workmen to persuade them, and they were only asking for a similar right for trade unionists.

MR. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.)

said he had always been a most strenuous advocate of the establishment of trade unions, but he did not believe in the tyranny of the men any more than in the tyranny of the masters. It was the duty of the House of Commons to look after not only trade unionists but also those who were not trade unionists. If he were a working man he should join a trade union, but a man had a perfect

right to go upon individualistic principles if he liked, and it was not right for men to attend at that man's home in the manner complained of. The illustrations which had been given showed how this power might be abused, and how a great crowd might surround a house. The Labour Party claimed a right to approach any individual man, and to put their arguments quietly and reasonably before him. That was a fair and reasonable demand, and if that was the real demand of trade unionists let them show their bona fides by accepting this Amendment. He did not appeal to the Attorney-General on this point, because they all knew that those who wielded the real power in shaping these clauses were the hon. Members who sat below the gangway. If the House adopted the Amendment they would do away with any suspicion that trade unionists were going to terrorise by surrounding his house any man who differed from them.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 320; Noes, 58. (Division List No. 368.)

Abraham, William (Rhondda) Bryce,Rt.Hn.James(Aberdeen) Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Acland, Francis Dyke Bryce, J. A. (InvernesBurghs) Delany, William
Ainsworth, John Stirling Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)
Alden, Percy Burke, E. Haviland- Dickinson,W.H.(St,Pancras,N
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Burns, Rt. H n. John Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Burnyeat. W. J. w. Dodd, W. H.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Buxton, Rt.Hon. Sydney Chas. Donelan, Captain A.
Astbury, John Meir Byles, William Pollard Duckworth, James
Atherley-Jones, L. Cairns, Thomas Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Carr-Gomm, H. W. Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)
Baker, J. A. (Finsbury, E.) Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard K. Dunne, Maj. E.Martin(Walsall)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Chance, Frederick William Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)
Barker, John Cheetham, John Frederick Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R Edwards, Frank (Radnor)
Beale, W. P. Clarke. C. Goddard Elibank, Master of
Beauchamp, E. Cleland. J. W. Erskine, David C.
Beaumont,Hn.W.C.B(Hexham Clough, William Evans, Samuel T.
Beck, A. Cecil Clynes, J. R. Everett, R. Lacey
Bell, Richard Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew,W. Fenwick, Charles
Bellairs, Carlyon Collins, SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W Ferens, T. R.
Benn, SirJ.Williams(Devonp't) Cooper, G. J. Ferguson, R. C. Munro
Berridge, T. H. D. Corbett,CH(Susex,EGrinst'd) Fiennes, Hon. Eustace
Bethell, J. H. (Essex,Romford) Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Flynn. James Christopher
Billson, Alfred Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.) Cowan. W. H. Freeman-Thomas, Freeman
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) Cox, Harold Fuller. John Michael F.
Bowerman, C. W. Craig, Herb. J. (Tynemouth) Fullerton, Hugh
Brace, William Cremer, William Randal Gibb, James (Harrow)
Bramsdon, T. A. Crombie, John William Gill, A. H.
Branch, James Crooks, William Ginnell, L.
Brigg, John Crosfield, A. H. Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John
Brocklehurst, W. B. Crossley, William J. Glendinning, R. G.
Brooke, Stopford Dalziel, James Henry Glover, Thomas
Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs.,Leigh) Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan) Goddard, Daniel Ford
Brunner,Rt,HnSirJT.(Cheshire Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Gooch, George Peabody
Grant, Corrie Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston) Shipman, Dr. John G.
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Marnham, F. J. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Greenwood, Hamar (York) Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Sloan, Thomas Henry
Guest, Hn. Ivor Churchill Massie, J. Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Gulland, John W. Masterman. C. F. G. Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Meagher, Michael Snowden, P.
Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B. Meehan, Patrick A. Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Hall, Frederick Menzies, Walter Soares, Ernest J.
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis Molteno, Percy Alport Spicer, Sir Albert
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) Money, L. G. Chiozza Stanger, H. Y.
Harrington, Timothy Montgomery, H. G. Stanley, Hn. A.Lyulph (Chesh.)
Harwood, George Mooney, J. J. Steadman, W. C.
Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Morrell, Philip Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Strachey, Sir Edward
Hazel, Dr. A. E. Murnaghan, George Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Hedges, A. Paget Murphy, John Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Helme, Norval Watson Murray, James Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Myer, Horatio Sullivan, Donal
Henry, Charles S. Nannetti, Joseph P. Summerbell, T.
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Napier, T. B. Sutherland, J. E.
Higham, John Sharp Newnes. F. (Notts, Basset law) Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Hills, J. W. Nicholls, George Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Hobart, Sir Robert Nicholson, Chas. N.(Doncaster) Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Hodge, John Norton, Capt. Cecil William Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Hogan, Michael Hussey, Thomas Willans Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)
Holden, E. Hopkinson O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.) Thomas,David Alfred(Merthyr)
Hooper, A. G. O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Thorne, William
Hope, W. Bateman(SomersetN.) O'Connor, James (Wicklow.W) Torrance, Sir A. M.
Horniman, Emslie John O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Toulmin, George
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey O'Grady, J. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Hudson, Walter O'Malley, William Ure, Alexander
Hutton, Alfred Eddison O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Verney, F. W.
Idris, T. H. W. Palmer, Sir Charles Mark Villiers, Ernest Amherst
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Parker, James (Halifax) Vivian, Henry
Jackson, R. S. Partington, Oswald Wadsworth, J.
Jacoby, James Alfred Paul, Herbert Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Jenkins, J. Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Pearce, William (Limehouse) Wallace, Robert
Jones,Sir D.Brynmor(Swansea) Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Walsh, Stephen
Jones, Leif (Appleby) Pickersgill, Edward Hare Walters, John Tudor
Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.) Pollard, Dr. Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Jowett, F. W. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Kekewich, Sir George Price. C. E. (Edinb'gh. Central Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Kelley, George D. Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford E.) Wardle, George J.
Kennedy, Vincent Paul Radford, G. H. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Rainy, A. Rolland Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Laidlaw, Robert Raphael, Herbert H. Wason, John C. (Orkney)
Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster) Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Waterlow, D.S.
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Rea, Walter Russell(Scarboro') Watt, H. Anderson
Lambert, George Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Weir, James Galloway
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Redmond, William (Clare) White, George (Norfolk)
Lament, Norman Rees, J. D. White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Richards, Thos. (W.Monm'th) White, Luke (York E.R.)
Layland-Barratt, Francis Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mt'n) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington) Richardson, A. Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Lehmann, R. C. Rickett, J. Compton Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Levy, Maurice Ridsdale, E. A. Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Lewis, John Herbert Roberts, Chas. H. (Lincoln) Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n
Lough, Thomas Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Lundon, W. Robertson, Rt.Hn.E. (Dundee) Williamson, A.
Lupton, Arnold Roberton,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd) Wills, Arthur Walters
Macdonald,J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs) Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Wilson, Hn. C. H. W. (Hull, W.
Mackarness, Frederic C. Robson, Sir William Snowdon Wilson, P. W. (St Pancras, S.)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Rogers, F. E. Newman Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
MacVeigh, Jeremiah (Down,S.) Rose, Charles Day Winfrey, R.
MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.) Rowlands, J. Wood, T. M'Kinnon
M'Callum, John M. Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Woodhouse, SirJT(Huddersf'd.
M'Crae, George Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland) Young, Samuel
M'Kean, John Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Yoxall, James Henry
M'Micking, Major G. Schwann,Sir C.E. (Manchester)
Maddison, Frederick Sears, J. E. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Mallet, Charles E. Shackleton. David James
Manfield, Harry (Northants) Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Acland-Hood, Rt.HnSirAlex.F Dixon, Sir Daniel Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield
Arkwright, John Stanhope Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Percy, Earl
Balcarres, Lord Duncan,Robert(Lanark,Govan Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter
Balfour, Rt.HnA.J. (City Lond Fell, Arthur Salter, Arthur Clavell
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Finch, Rt. Hn. George H. Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Baring, Hn. Guy (Winchester) Fletcher, J. S. Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton
Beach, Hn Michael HughHicks Forster, Henry William Smith, Hn. W. F.D. (Strand)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark
Bowles, G. Stewart Hamilton, Marquess of Thornton, Percy M.
Bull, Sir William James Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford) Tuke, Sir John Batty
Burdett-Coutts, W. Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. Tumour, Viscount
Butcher, Samuel Henry Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) Valentia, Viscount
Carlile, E. Hildred Hunt, Rowland Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R
Cavendish, Rt.Hn. Victor C.W. Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Cecil Lord R (Marylebone, E.) Liddell, Henry Younger. George
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-ColAR
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Mason, James F. (Windsor) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Rawlinson and Viscount Castlereagh.
Courthope, G. Loyd Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Dalrymple, Viscount Morpeth, Viscount

in moving to leave out the words "or happens to be," said that this Amendment raised a point very similar to the last. The point of the last Amendment was whether people should have the right to attend at a man's house; the question raised by this was whether they should have a right to attend a man wherever he happened to be. That included the powerful right of following a man about from place to place. He would only add a word to what he had already said, and that was to contradict as strongly as he could the assertion of the hon. Member for Mid. Glamorganshire, that this was not making an alteration in the law. The hon. Member had referred to Section 7 of the Act of 1875. It did not touch this point in any shape or form. It dealt with the criminal law, and said what was to be done when the act was of a criminal nature. What was done by this Bill? What the intention of the Attorney-General was was immaterial. What was done by this section as it stood was to legalise men going in large numbers to attend, either at a man's home, or at the place where he might happen to be. He could give no better illustration of the inconvenience and nuisance of such shadowing than that which was given by the right hon. Gentleman when he instanced the case of the ladies popularly called "suffragettes." No one could doubt that if a large body of such ladies followed about from place to place any Members of Parliament whom they might desire to peacefully persuade,—to their homes, to railway stations, or wherever they might happen to be—the law as it stood would deal with that state of affairs. An injunction would be granted if what they did amounted to a nuisance at common law. No one could doubt that if they came continually to attend one at his home or at other places the law provided a remedy although there might be no violence. In order to put this action in order, so far as trade disputes were concerned, an Amendment was necessary. It would not alter the law so far as political matters were concerned. There would always be the protection so far as they were concerned which the law at present afforded. But by the very wide definition of "trade dispute" the protection at present given to Members of Parliament was taken away, and the action of people who attended in large numbers at a person's house or at the place where he might be was legalised. He hoped he was not out of sympathy with working men in this matter. He was putting this not on any class ground, but merely on the ground of the rights of the people at large. If they were going to extend this law generally to trade disputes they ought not to do anything to authorise peaceful molestation, if he might use such a phrase. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh."] The hon. Member might say "oh," but had he never come across cases where people had been shadowed by persons of honest intention and with no intention of using violence, but for the purpose of persuading those whom they followed? Everybody knew what a very powerful form of persuasion it was, and how exceedingly unpleasant for the victim of it. He ventured to say that this was an objectionable alteration in the law, and he hoped the House would see its way, at all events, to restrict the right to attend to the places where persons lived or worked.


seconded the Amendment. Fie was one of those who thought; that if the law now existing in relation to matters of boycotting and picketing was changed, it ought to be in the direction of restricting the present powers and not in the sense of extending them. If the words which were challenged by this Amendment remained, the victim of the conduct authorised by this section would lose the protection which the law now afforded, on the hypothesis that it was illegal at the present moment and could be restrained by injunction, because, if that was not so, the section was meaningless and unnecessary. Under the section it would be possible not merely for the victim to be attended at his home and his work, but to be followed about and shadowed, and to be accosted at any time. Those were the well-known effects of a system under which there would be no rest from persecution, night or day. He thought those who, like himself, regarded with the greatest apprehension the change which this section was designed to produce in the law which at present protected the daily life, liberty, seclusion, and privacy of all, should resist at every stage the attempt to reduce those rights which some of them, at any rate, considered of the greatest importance.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 17, to leave out the words 'or happens to be.' "—(Mr. Rawlinson.)

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


said the picture which his hon. and learned friend the Member for Cambridge University had drawn of the danger not only to those engaged in a trade dispute, in the ordinarily accepted use of that term, but to Members of this House was one which deserved some consideration. It was well known to everybody that there were matters on which the views held by hon. Members were not absolutely identical with, or easily reconcilable with, the views of men and women who engaged in trade disputes. There were questions which would come up from time to time in this House, and if they were to be peacefully persuaded at all times when they were moving about from place to place he did not think that their lot would be quite happy. Personally he had the greatest dislike to being over-persuaded, and he did not wish opinions with which he disagreed to be urged upon him not only at proper times and seasons but in all places by quite irresponsible advisers. He imagined that most of those whom he was addressing would feel that he was not exaggerating their own sentiments in similar circumstances. He thought that the Government had not taken quite sufficient account of the abuse to which this clause was open when they urged that it could not lead to anything in the nature of intimidation or undue pressure. He agreed that they did not desire that to be the effect of the clause, but were they quite clear that they had so framed the words that the picture which his hon. and learned friend had drawn could never be realised in practice? It was a difficult matter of legal construction, but he submitted with great deference that proceedings which were to be authorised as peaceful persuasion might become intolerable to everybody connected with a trade dispute, whether as employer, workman, or legislator. They were all agreed upon what they wanted, and it was really a question of legal interpretation. If the Government could show that his hon. and learned friend was wrong in his interpretation of the clause, well and good; but if not he thought it was their duty on this or some other occasion to introduce limiting words which would prevent the abuse of "persuasion." If the clause was passed as it stood they would not be able in future to deal with at common law a nuisance which could now be so dealt with.


said the right hon. Gentleman had, somewhat unintentionally perhaps, raised the controversy which engaged the House for some hours on the previous night, because the whole question then was whether the words they had introduced, and which afforded a test of the motive and the purpose for which an interview was sought, incidentally involved all the restrictions for the protection of individual liberty. He had certainly tried to show that in the view of the Government they had performed the task which they had endeavoured to accomplish. What was, speaking generally, the right authorised under this section? It was simply the right of seeking an interview with a man with the object of inducing him to join a section of his fellows who proposed to give up work. That, surely, was a legitimate object, and if there was not some provision which would allow of its accomplishment it would be impossible to carry on any industrial agitation in the nature of a strike. No one wished that the interview should be sought under circumstances which would inspire fear in the person with whom it was sought. No one wished that a person should be approached with any other object than that of appealing to his reason and sense of fairness in reference to the question agitating his fellows. The clause was framed so that no such interview could be lawfully sought unless with the object he had indicated. If that were true, and if that test were fairly applied, and if the operation successfully bore that test, then he said that incidentally they safeguarded public order and private right. Let him remind the right hon. Gentleman that what he said last night was this. In an ordinary case if there was one man to be persuaded a couple of trade unionists might be got to wait upon him at his house, or at his place of work, or if he was inside a refreshment house havinga cup of tea or a chop, they might wait and speak to him when he came out, and the extraordinary absurdity of the Amendment was that while it was possible to wait on a man at his residence, place of business, or the works where he was engaged, it would be unlawful to wait until he came out of the shop where he was drinking a cup of tea or getting other refreshment. They were seriously asked to adopt an Amendment of that kind. What he said was that it was obvious that if a crowd was taken to persuade one man, the object was intimidation. What inference would a tribunal draw from the fact that a large-body of persons were taken where one or two persons would have been sufficient? It would be inferred that the operation was for the purpose of inspiring fear. If the method adopted were one to cause unnecessary pain, embarrassment, or injury, what was the inference which they would draw? It would be said that it was obvious that it was not the man's reason to which they were seeking to appeal. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of a nuisance being created. He maintained that this test was sufficient for all purposes, and that they got a better guarantee for individual liberty and public order by imposing a test of the purpose or motive with which the proceeding was conducted than by endeavouring to fence it round by a series of express limitations which might be subject to evasion and in times of excitement be thrust aside.


said he had the good fortune to find himself in almost complete agreement with the hon. and learned Attorney-General, but there were some observations which he wished to make on the speech he had just delivered. The Attorney-General had said that in every case in which a large number of men assembled for the purpose of peaceful persuasion, the Court would draw the irresistible inference that intimidation was intended. With the greatest respect he ventured to reply that that was just one of those cases in regard to which they ought to have some guarantee. The hon. Gentleman below the gangway had bitterly opposed such a guarantee, and his object, and that of his Party, was now perfectly clear. It must be obvious that a great deal of the controversy which had taken place would have been avoided if the intention of Parliament could be clearly construed from the words of the Bill. The common view was that the attendance of men at a house in large numbers was some evidence of intimidation, but according to the language of the Attorney-General it was conclusive evidence. He was unable to assent to that view. Was there a single Member below the gangway who would say that that was the effect of the Bill? If the Attorney-General would embody in the measure a single Amendment securing that result, no other Amendments would be moved on that point. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the whole question was that two or three trade unionists might be only seeking an interview. It was not a question of seeking an interview, but of imposing an interview, and that made the greatest possible difference. The present form of words was open to considerable objection. All that they asked was that the Attorney-General should accept an Amendment which would secure that no man might be lawfully followed and shadowed from his house to his place of business and back from his place of business to his house. They asked nothing except that that man should be protected from an interview that he did not desire. As the Bill stood at present the man was unprotected.


said he had already pointed out that the proposed words in the Amendment suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman were absolutely unnecessary. He maintained that the test was as perfect as human ingenuity could frame it. In regard to numbers, all he said was that, if the number was clearly more than was required for the purpose of peaceful persuasion, the inference would be that it was for some collateral purpose, and if that were so, then the right exercised under the clause would be abused. The mere purpose of persuasion must regulate the numbers.


said he ventured to appeal to the hon. Member for Clitheroe, who throughout the discussion had shown the utmost straightforwardness and clearness of statement, whether he agreed with the Attorney-General that if a larger number of people attended than was absolutely necessary for the purpose of peaceful persuasion, that was clear evidence that there was some other purpose?


said he had no desire to prolong the discussion, but as his opinion had been requested, he was quite willing to give it. He held that the words proposed by the Government on this matter, coupled with the tribunal before which these cases would be brought, would amply secure all the peaceful conduct which hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House asked for. [An HON. MEMBER: What about numbers?] He was not going to say anything about numbers which had to be reckoned according to the dispute. There was an Amendment on the Paper which said that the number of persons attending should not exceed the number of persons it was sought to persuade. The statement that a thousand men might be picketed by a thousand men was absurd, but under the Amendment they would have the power to do it. What the Labour Party meant was to peacefully persuade, and to give information in a peaceable manner. It must be remembered that the first Court to which these cases would go would be composed of men the majority of whom were chosen from the employers, and who would be in sympathy with those with whom the men happened to be in dispute. That was a sufficient guarantee that any act which the trade unionists committed would be closely scrutinised. He hoped that the Attorney-General and the Government would not consent to any limitation of numbers in regard to picketing They knew why the Opposition wanted it. The words "or happens to be," should not be omitted from this Bill. Before a strike began, the employers would send their manager or agents to the men who had sent in their notices to endeavour to persuade them not to carry out what they had promised to their union, but to go to work. Was it to be an illegal thing for him, or for anybody representing his union, if he happened to meet a man in a public library, or in a public park, or in a public-house (where he did not go often) to say a word to that man? That was the proposal. [OPPOSITION cries of "No, no."] The words of the clause were "or happens to be." If they struck out those words they strictly limited trade unionists to certain places where peaceful picketing could be done. [An HON. MEMBER: What about numbers?] Numbers had nothing to do with it. The only object of striking out these words was that if they happened to speak to a man peacefully, to ask him not to break his contract with his union, and say, "Don't succumb to the employers," it should be said that they were breaking the law. He was surprised that the representatives of the Tory Party, when the law of the land had existed for thirty years, should come down to the House of Commons in the year 1906, and want them to put their own Act of Parliament in the waste-paper basket. The object of the Opposition was not to prevent peaceful persuasion, but to land trade unionists in the clutches of the law. They had heard of this before. They had received circulars from the Employers' Association, addressed to Members of Parliament, and the whole object of these Gentlemen who were representatives of the employers, was, by this Amendment, to defeat the clause itself. He appealed to the Government, though he did not think it necessary to appeal. There had been no change in the attitude of the Government in this matter. These words had appeared in more than one Act of Parliament. The Government had gone to a Conservative Act of Parliament and copied the words, word by word, from that Act into their own Bill. The Opposition ought to be ashamed of their present attitude. The House understood their object, and he hoped the Amendment would be rejected by an overwhelming majority.


said that his noble friend was perfectly right when he said that the hon. Member for Clitheroe would give the House a straightforward answer to the question put to him. He had made a most telling and effective speech in favour of the case made out by the Opposition. He did not agree in one iota with the argument of the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General had made the clear statement that under the clause which he proposed the numbers would be limited to a reasonable number.


That is not the case.


said that the hon. and learned Gentleman said that he never made such a statement; but they heard him say that if two or three people went to peacefully persuade a man, or give him information, that was carrying out the law; but that, if a larger number went, the interpretation of the Court would inevitably be that that was more than was absolutely necessary. The hon. Gentleman below the gangway entirely repudiated that, and claimed that a large number might be necessary to carry out the picketing. He admitted that this was largely a question of legal interpretation, but he pointed out that lawyer after lawyer — and good lawyers too — had declared that the interpretation of the law by the Attorney-General was a wrong interpretation. [Cries of "No" from the Opposition benches."] The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool.——


said that, by leave of the House, he might be allowed to say that a large number of legal points had arisen between the Attorney-General and himself, and what had occurred was that on some of the questions of legal construction he was not in agreement with the Attorney-General; but there were one or two in which he did concur.


said that that was exactly the answer he knew would be given. One point on which the hon. and learned Gentleman did not agree with the Attorney-General was that the Court would inevitably decide that the attendance of more than a certain number of persons was a contravention of the law. In Committee the hon and learned Gentleman had himself admitted that other words were necessary, so that he had only at the last moment taken the view he had now expressed. If this was purely a matter of legal interpretation on which lawyers differed, he could not understand why the hon. and learned Gentleman should refuse to make the point perfectly plain and clear in the Bill.


said that not a single observation made by the hon Member for Dulwich bore on the Amendment now before the House. At present the House was dealing with the question not of numbers, but whether or not peaceful picketing should be allowed, not only at his place of business or his house, but where a man "happens to be." The hon. Gentleman had said that numbers as such did not come into the question, but

the Attorney-General had never said that the mere question of numbers should determine the matter. He was not talking of the justice of the Amendment. The words of the clause had been taken from the Act of 1875, passed by a Tory Government, and the Tory Party were now attempting to repeal a portion of that Act, and to take away from the trade unions the privileges which they had enjoyed for thirty years. The effect of the Amendment would be that in every case a workman could not be spoken to in the street, and the picketers would be driven to the man's house, thereby limiting the occasions and the places where peaceful picketing could take place. It was becoming clear that the speeches of hon. Members opposite were not in favour of the Amendment, but against peaceful picketing. Peaceful picketing was now part of the law of the land, and a right which they on that side of the House thought ought to be enjoyed by trade unionists.


said that he had found after the discussion that the Amendment went somewhat further than the case he was anxious to meet. He therefore asked leave to withdraw.

Leave not being granted—

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 317; Noes, 44. (Division List No. 369).

Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.) Ashton, Thomas Gair Beauchamp, E.
Abraham, Wm. (Rhondda) Astbury, John Meir Beaumont,Hn.W.C.B(Hexham
Acland, Francis Dyke Atherley-Jones, L. Beck, A. Cecil
Ainsworth, John Stirling Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Bell, Richard
Alden, Percy Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E. Bellairs, Carlyon
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Bonn, Sir JWilliams(Devonp'rt
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Barlow, Fercy (Bedford) Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets, S.Geo
Ambrose, Robert Beale, W. P. Berridge, T. H. D.
Bethell, J. H.(Essex, Romford) Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J. MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)
Billson, Alfred Glendinning, R. G. M'Callum, John M.
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh. Glover, Thomas M'Crae, George
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) Goddard, Daniel Ford M'Kean, John
Bowerman, C. W. Gooch, George Peabody M'Micking, Major G.
Brace, William Grant, Corrie Maddison, Frederick
Bramsdon, T. A. Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Mallet, Charles E.
Branch, James Greenwood, Hamar (York) Manfield, Harry (Northants)
Brigg, John Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston
Brocklehurst, W. B. Gulland, John W. Marnham, F. J.
Brooke, Stopford Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs.Leigh Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B. Massie, J.
Brunner, Rt.HnSirJT(Cheshire Hall, Frederick Meagher, Michael
Bryce, Rt.Hn James (Aberdeen Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis Meehan, Patrick A.
Burke, E. Haviland- Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Menzies, Walter
Burns, Rt. Hn. John Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) Molteno, Percy Alport
Burnyeat, W. J. D. Harrington, Timothy Money, L. G. Chiozza
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas. Harwood, George Montgomery. H. G.
Byles, William Pollard Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Mooney, J. J.
Cairns, Thomas Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Morgan,J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Hay, Hon. Claude George Morrell, Philip
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard K. Hazel, Dr. A. E. Morton, AlpheusCleophas
Channing, Francis Allston Hedges, A. Paget Murnaghan, George
Cheetham, John Frederick Helme, Norval Watson Murphy, John
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Murray, James
Churchill, Winston Spencer Henry, Charles S. Nannetti, Joseph P.
Clarke, C. Goddard Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S. Nicholls, George
Cleland, J. W. Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster
Clough, William Higham, John Sharp Norman, Henry
Clynes, J. R. Hills, J.W. Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Coats, SirT.Glen(Renfrew, W.) Hobart, Sir Robert Nussey, Thomas Williams
Cooper, G. J. Hobhouse, Charles E. H. O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)
Corbett, CH(SussexE.Grinst'd) Hodge, John O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Hogan, Michael O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W.)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Holden, E. Hopkinson O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Cowan, W. H. Hope,W.Bateman(Somerset,N. O'Donnell. C. J. (Walworth)
Cox. Harold Howard, Hn. Geoffrey O'Grady, J.
Craig, Herb. J. (Tynemouth) Hudson, Walter O'Malley, William
Cremer, William Randal Hutton, Alfred Eddison O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Crombie, John William Hyde, Clarendon Palmer, Sir Chas. Mark
Crooks, William Idris, T. H. W. Parker, James (Halifax)
Crosfield, A. H. Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Partington, Oswald
Dalziel, James Henry Jackson, R. S. Paul, Herbert
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Jacoby, James Alfred Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Jenkins, J. Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Delany, William Jones,SirD.Brynmor(Swansea) Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Jones, Leif (Appleby) Pollard, Dr.
Dickinson, W.H.(St, PancrasN Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Jowett, F. W. Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Dodd, W. H. Kekewich, Sir George Priestley, W. E. B.(Bradford,E
Donelan, Captain A. Kelley, George D. Radford, G.H.
Duckworth, James Kennedy, Vincent Paul Rainy, N. Rolland
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness King, Alfred John(Knutsford) Raphael, Herbert H.
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Laidlaw, Robert Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Dunne, Maj. E. Martin(Walsall Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Lambert, George Redmond, William (Clare)
Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Lamont, Norman Rees, J. D.
Elibank, Master of Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mt'n
Erskine, David C. Layland-Barratt, Francis Richardson, A.
Evans, Samuel T. Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington) Rickett, J. Compton
Everett, R. Lacey Levy, Maurice Ridsdale, E. A.
Fenwick, Chas. Lewis, John Herbert Roberts, Chas. H. (Lincoln)
Ferens, T. R. Lough, Thomas Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Lundon, W. Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. Dundee)
Flynn, James Christopher Lupton, Arnold Robertson, SirGScott(Bradfrd
Freeman-Thomas, Freeman Lynch, H. B. Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Fuller, John Michael F. Macdonald, J.M(Falkirk B'ghs Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Fullerton, Hugh Mackarness, Frederic C. Rogers, F. E. Newman
Gibb, James (Harrow) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Rose, Charles Day
Gill, A. H. Macpherson, J. T. Rowlands, J.
Ginnell, L. MacVeagh, Jeremiah, (Down, S. Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Watt, H. Anderson
Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) Weir, James Galloway
Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E. White, George (Norfolk)
Sears. J. E. Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Shackleton, David James Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.) Thorne, William White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Shipman, Dr. John G. Toulmin, George Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John Trevelyan, Charles Philips Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Sloan, Thomas Henry Ure, Alexander Wiles, Thomas
Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Verney, F. W. Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Smyth, Thomas P. (Leitrim, S.) Villiers, Ernest Amherst Williams,Llewelyn(Carmarth'n
Snowden, P. Vivian, Henry Williamson, A.
Soames, Arthur Wellesley Wadsworth, J. Wills, Arthur Walters
Soares, Ernest J. Waldron, Laurence Ambrose Wilson, Hn. C. H. W. (Hull, W.
Spicer, Sir Albert Walker, H. D. R. (Leicester) Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Stanger, H. Y. Wallace, Robert Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Steadman, W. C. Walsh, Stephen Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Stewart, Halley (Greenock) Walters, John Tudor Winfrey, R.
Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) Walton, Sir J. L. (Leeds, S.) Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Straus, B. S. (Mile End) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) Woodhouse, Sir JT(Huddersf'd
Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent Young, Samuel
Stuart, James (Sunderland) Wardle, George J. Yoxall, James Henry
Sullivan, Donal Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Summerbell, T. Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Sutherland. J. E. Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney
Taylor, John W. (Durham) Waterlow, D. S.
Acland-Hood, Rt.HnSirA. F. Dalrymple, Viscount Morpeth, Viscount
Arkwright, John Stanhope Dixon, Sir Daniel Pease, Herb, Pike (Darlington)
Balcarres, Lord Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred D. Percy, Earl
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Faber, George Denison (York) Rothschild, Hon. LionelWalter
Baring, Hn. Guy (Winchester) Finch, Rt. Hn. George H. Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Beach, Hn. MichaelHughHicks Forster, Henry William Smith,F.E.(Liverpool,Walton)
Beckett, Hn. Gervase Gardner, Ernest (Borks, East) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Gibbs. G. A. (Bristol, West) Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark
Bowles, G. Stewart Hamilton, Marquess of Thornton, Percy M.
Carlile, E. Hildred Harrison- Broadley, Col. H. B. Tuke, Sir John Batty
Castlereagh, Viscount Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) Turnour, Viscount
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor CW Kimber, Sir Henry Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R.
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E. Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Liddell, Henry
Courthope, G. Loyd Mason, James F. (Windsor) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Rawlinson and Mr. Salter.
Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.) Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Amendments proposed— In page 1, line 18, after the word 'of to insert the word 'peacefully.' In page 1, line 19, after the word 'of to insert the word 'peacefully.'

Amendments agreed to.

SIR FREDERICK BANBURY moved to add the following proviso: —"Provided always that nothing in this section shall exempt any person from liability for trespass." He thought that these words should be inserted to preserve the rights which the community hitherto had t enjoyed. Reference had been made to an occasion when a number of persons opened a door and went up into a man's room, and it was stated by one of the hon. Members below the gangway that the Bill would justify the breaking open of a man's door. His Amendment was intended to stop that sort of thing, and afford persons the protection of the ordinary law. The Attorney-General had said that if a number of men went to a man's house and did anything which was unreasonable then the Courts of law would interfere; but the opinion of an hon. and learned Member of that House, however eminent, would not affect the decision of a Court of law. He had always thought that an Englishman's house was his castle, and that he was entitled to its protection. His Amendment would not interfere with the right of hon. Members below the gangway to influence workmen by means of "peaceful persuasion."

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 20, at end to add, "Provided always that nothing in this section shall exempt any person from liability for trespass."— (Sir Frederick Banbury.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."


thought the words were unnecessary, as the case which the hon. Member contemplated would be met by the ordinary law, and

there was nothing in the section which abrogated that law.


said that while he accepted the statement of the hon. and learned Member that there was nothing in this clause to abrogate the law of trespass, a course which would be extremely undesirable, as a layman he did not understand how an enactment in specific terms to the effect that it was lawful for more than one person to attend upon any other person, not only at his residence, or at his works, but wherever he happened to be, could be said not to abrogate the law of trespass.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 46; Noes, 305. (Division List No. 370.)

Acland-Hood,RtHn.Sir Alex.F Faber, George, Denison (York) Percy, Earl
Balcarres, Lord Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Fletcher, J. S. Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Beach,Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Forster, Henry William Salter, Arthur Clavell
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) Scott, Sir H. (Marylebone, W.)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Smith,F.E. (Liverpool, Walton
Burdett-Couttts, W. Hamilton, Marquess of Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Butcher, Samuel Henry Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. Thornton, Percy M.
Carlile, E. Hildred Hunt, Rowland Tuke, Sir John Batty
Cavendish,Rt.Hon.Victor C.W. Kimber, Sir Henry Wilson,A.Stanley (York, E.R.
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E. Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich. Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Liddell, Henry Younger, George
Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim,S MacIver, David (Liverpool)
Dalrymple, Viscount M'Calmont, Colonel James TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Viscount Castlereagh and Mr. Bowles.
Dixon, Sir Daniel Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Dixon-Hartland.SirFred Dixon Morpeth, Viscount
Duncan,Robert (Lanark, Gov'n Pease,Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E. Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Billson, Alfred
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Beale, W. P. Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.
Acland, Francis Dyke Beauchamp, E. Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Beaumont,Hn.W.C.B. (H'x'm Bowerman, C. W.
Alien, Charles P. (Stroud) Beck, A. Cecil Brace, William
Ambrose, Robert Bell, Richard Bramsdon, T. A.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Bellairs, Carlyon Branch, James
Astbury, John Meir Benn,Sir J.Williams (D'v'np'rt Brigg, John
Atherley-Jones, L. Benn.W. (Tw'r H'njl'ts, S.Geo Brocklehurst, W.B.
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Berridge, T. H. D. Brooke, Stopford
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E. Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford) Brunner,J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Brunner Rt.Hn.Sir J. T. (Ches
Bryce,Rt. Hn. James (Aberd'n Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen
Bryce, J.A. (Inverness Burghs) Harrington, Timothy Morrell, Philip
Burke, E. Haviland- Harwood, George Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Murnaghan, George
Burnyeat, W. J. D. Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Murphy, John
Buxton.Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles Hay, Hon. Claude George Murray, James
Byles, William Pollard Hazel, Dr. A. E. Myer, Horatio
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Hedges, A. Paget Nannetti, Joseph P.
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Helme, Norval Watson Nicholls, George
Causton, Rt. Hn. RichardKnight Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Nicholson, Charles N. (Donc'r
Channing, Francis Allston Henry, Charles S. Norman, Henry
Cheetham, John Frederick Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon.,S.) Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Nussey, Thomas Willans
Clarke, C. Goddard Higham, John Sharp O'Brien Kendal(Tipperary,Mid
Cleland, J. W. Hobart, Sir Robert O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Clough, William Hobhouse, Charles E. H. O'Connor, James (Wicklow.W
Clynes, J. R. Hodge, John O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Coats,Sir T.Glen (Renfrew, W.) Hogan, Michael O'Grady, J.
Cooper, G. J. Hope,W. Bateman(Somerset,N. O'Malley, William
Corbett,C.H. (Sussex,E.G'nst'd Howard, Hon. Geoffrey O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Hudson, Walter Palmer, Sir Charles Mark
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Hutton, Alfred Eddison Parker, James (Halifax)
Cowan, W. H. Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Partington, Oswald
Cox, Harold Jacoby, James Alfred Paul, Herbert
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Jenkins, J. Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Cremer, William Randal Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Crombie, John William Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Sw'nsea Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Crooks, William Jones, Leif (Appleby) Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Crosfield, A. H. Jones, William (Carnarvonsh. Pollard, Dr.
Crossley, William J. Jowett, F. W. Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central
Dalziel James Henry Kearley, Hudson E. Priestley,W.E.B. (Bradford, E.
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Kekewich, Sir George Radford, G. H.
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Kennedy, Vincent Paul Rainy, A. Holland
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) King, Alfred John (Knutsford Raphael, Herbert H.
Delany, William Laidlaw, Robert Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S. Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster) Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro
Dickinson,W.H.(St.Pancras,N. Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Redmond, John E. (Waterford
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Lambert, George Redmond, William (Clare)
Dodd, W. H. Lamont, Norman Rees, J. D.
Donelan, Captain A. Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Richards, T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n
Duckworth, James Layland-Barratt, Francis Richardson, A.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Ac'ngton Rickett, J. Compton
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Levy, Maurice Ridsdale, E. A.
Dunn, Major E.Martin (Walsall Lewis, John Herbert Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Lough, Thomas Robertson,Rt.Hn. E. (Dundee
Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Lundon, W. Robertson,Sir G.Scott (Bradf'd
Elibank, Master of Lupton, Arnold Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Erskine, David C. Macdonald,J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Evans, Samuel T. Mackarness, Frederic C. Rogers, F. E. Newman
Everett, R. Lacey Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Rose, Charles Day
Fenwick, Charles Macpherson, J. T. Rowlands, J.
Ferens, T. R. MacVeagh,Jeremiah (Down,S. Runciman, Walter
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal, E. Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Flynn, James Christopher M'Callum, John M. Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland
Freeman-Thomas, Freeman M'Crae, George Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Fuller, John Michael F. M'Kean, John Schwann,Sir C.E. (Manchester
Gibb, James (Harrow) M'Micking, Major G. Sears, J. E.
Gill, A. H. Maddison, Frederick Shackleton, David James
Ginnell, L. Mallet, Charles E. Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.
Gladstone,Rt.Hn. Herbert John Manfield, Harry (Northants) Shipman,Dr. John G.
Glendinning, R. G. Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston) Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Glover, Thomas Marnham, F. J. Sloan, Thomas Henry
Goddard, Daniel Ford Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Gooch, George Peabody Massie, J. Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.
Grant, Corrie Masterman, C. F. G. Snowden, P.
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Meagher, Michael Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Greenwood, Hamar (York) Meehan, Patrick A. Soares, Ernest J.
Gulland, John W. Menzies, Walter Spicer, Sir Albert
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Molteno, Percy Alport Stanger, H. Y.
Hall, Frederick Money, L. G. Chiozza Steadman, W. C.
Harconrt, Rt. Hon. Lewis Montgomery, H. G. Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Mooney, J. J. Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Straus, B. S. (Mile End) Vivian, Henry Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) Waldron, Laurence Ambrose Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Stuart, James (Sunderland) Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) Wiles, Thomas
Sullivan, Donal Wallace, Robert Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Summer bell, T. Walsh, Stephen. Williams Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n
Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) Walters, John Tudor Williamson, A.
Taylor, John W. (Durham) Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.) Wills, Arthur Walters
Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent Wilson, J. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E Wardle, George J. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. Winfrey, R
Thomas, David Alfred (M'thyr Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan Wood, T. M Kinnon
Thorne, William Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney Woodhouse, Sir J.T. (H'd'rsf'd
Toulmin, George Waterlow, D. S. Young, Samuel
Trevelyan, Charles Philips Watt, H. Anderson
Ure, Alexander White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Verney, F. W. White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Villiers, Ernest Amherst White, Patrick (meath, North)

*SIR JOHN WALTON moved "That the Question 'That the words of the Bill to the end of page 1, line 23, stand part of the Bill,' be now put."

The House divided:—Ayes, 294; Noes, 47. (Division List No. 371.)

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E Burnyeat, W. J. D. Duckworth, James
Abraham, William (Rhondda Buxton,Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)
Acland, Francis Dyke Byles, William Pollard Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall
Ainsworth, John Stirling Cairns, Thomas Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)
Ambrose, Robert Carr-Gomm, H. W. Edwards, Frank (Radnor)
Astbury, John Meir Causton,Rt. Hn.Richard Knight Elibank, Master of
Atherley-Jones, L. Channing, Francis Allston Erskine, David C.
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Cheetham, John Frederick Evans, Samuel T.
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E. Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Everett, R. Lacey
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Churchill, Winston Spencer Fenwick, Charles
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Clarke, C. Goddard Ferens, T. R.
Beale, W. P. Cleland, J. W. Fiennes, Hon. Eustace
Beauchamp, E. Clough, William Flynn, James Charistopher
Beaumont,Hn.W.C.B. (H'x'm Clynes, J. R. Freeman-Thomas, Freeman
Beck, A. Cecil Coats,Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) Fuller, John Micheal F.
Bell, Richard Cooper, G. J. Gibb, James (Harrow)
Bellairs, Carlyon Corbett,C.H.(Sussex, E Gr'st'd Gill, A. H.
Benn, Sir J. Williams (D'v'np't Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Ginnell, L.
Benn, W. (T'w'r H'ml'ts, S.Geo Cotton, Sir H J. S. Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John
Berridge, T. H. D. Cowan, W. H Glendinning R. G.
Bethell, J. H.(Essex, Romford) Cox, Harold Glover, Thomas
Bethell, T. H. (Essex, Maldon) Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Goddard, Daniel Ford
Billson, Alfred Cremer, William Randal Gooch, George Peabody
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh. Crombie, John William Grant, Corrie
Bolton, T.D. (Derbyshire, N.E Crooks, William Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) Crosfield, A. H. Greenwood, Hamar (York)
Bowerman, C. W. Brossley, William J. Gulland, John W.
Brace, William Dalziel, James Henry Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Brigg, John Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan Hall, Frederick
Brocklehurst, W. B. Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Harcourt, Bt. Hon. Lewis
Brooke, Stopford Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Hardy, George, A. (Suffolk)
Brunner,J.F.L. (Lancs. Leigh Delany, William Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r
Brunner,Rt.Hn. Sir J.T. (Ches. Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh) Harrington, Timothy
Bryce,Rt.Hn. James (Aberdeen Dickinson,W. H. (S. Pancras, N. Harwood, George
Bryce, J. A.(Inverness Burghs) Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Haslam, James (Derbyshire)
Burke, E. Haviland- Dodd, W. H. Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Donelan, Captain A. Hazel, Dr. A. E.
Hedges, A. Paget Money, L. G. Chiozza Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim,S.
Helme, Norval Watson Montgomery, H. G. Snowden, P.
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Mooney, J. J. Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Henry, Charles S. Morgan,J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Spicer, Sir Albert
Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon.,S Morrell, Philip Stanger, H. Y.
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Steadman, W. C.
Higham, John Sharp Murnaghan, George Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Murphy, John Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Hodge, John Murray, James Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Hogan, Michael Myer, Horatio Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset,N Nannetti, Joseph P Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Nicholls, George Sullivan, Donal
Hudson, Walter Norman, Henry Summerbell, T.
Hutton, Alfred Eddison Norton, Capt. Cecil William Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Idris, T. H. W. Nussey, Thomas Willans Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel O'Brien, Kendal (Tip'rary Mid. Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Jacoby, James Alfred O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Thomas,Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Jenkins, J. O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. Thomas,Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.
Johnson, W. (Nuncaton) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Thomas,David Alfred (Merthyr
Jones,Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea O'Grady, J. Thorne, William
Jones, Leif (Appleby) O'Malley, William Toulmin, George
Jones, William (Carnarvonsh. Palmer, Sir Charles Mark Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Jowett, F. W. Parker, James (Halifax) Ure, Alexander
Kearley, Hudson E. Partington, Oswald Verney, F. W.
Kekewich, Sir George Paul, Herbert Villiers, Ernest Amherst
Kennedy, Vincent Paul Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) Vivian, Henry
King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Laidlaw, Robert Pickersgill, Edward Hare Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster Pollard, Dr. Wallace, Robert
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford,E.) Walsh, Stephen
Lambert, George Radford, G. H. Walters, John Tudor
Lamont, Norman Rainy, A. Rolland Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Raphael, Herbert H. Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Layland-Barratt, Francis Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent
Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Ac'ngton) Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' Wardle, George J.
Levy, Maurice Redmond, John E. (Waterford Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Lewis, John Herbert Redmond, William (Clare) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Rees, J. D. Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Lough, Thomas Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mp'n Waterlow, D. S.
Lundon, W. Richardson, A. Watt, H. Anderson
Lupton, Arnold Rickett, J. Compton White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Macdonald,J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs Ridsdale, E. A. White, Luke (York, E. B.)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Macpherson, J. T. Robertson,Rt.Hn. E. (Dundee) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down.S. Robertson,Sir G.Scott (Br'df'd) Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palme
MacVeagh,Charles (Donegal, E. Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Wiles, Thomas
M'Callum, John M Robson, Sir William Snowdon Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
M'Crae, George Rogers, F. E. Newman Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n
M'Kean, John Rose, Charles Day Williamson, A.
M'Micking, Major G. Rowlands, J. Wills, Arthur Walters
Maddison, Frederick Runciman, Walter Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.
Mallet, Charles E. Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Manfield, Harry (Northants) Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Winfrey, R.
Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Marnham, F. J. Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester Woodhouse,Sir J.T.(Hud'rsf'd)
Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Sears, J. E. Young, Samuel
Massie, J. Shackleton, David James
Masterman, C. F. G. Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Meagher, Michael Shipman, Dr. John G.
Meehan, Patrick A. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Menzies, Walter Sloan, Thomas Henry
Molteno, Percy Alport Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Acland-Hood,Rt.Hn.SirAlex.F Beckett, Hon. Gervase Carlile, E. Hildred
Arkwright, John Stanhope Bignold, Sir Arthur Castlereagh, Viscount
Balcarres, Lord Bowles, G. Stewart Cavendish,Rt.Hn. Victor C.W.
Balfour,Rt.Hn.A.J.(CityLond.) Burdett-Coutts, W. Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks Butcher, Samuel Henry Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)
Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim.S. Kimber, Sir Henry Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.
Dalrymple, Viscount Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Smith,F. E. (Liverpool,Walton
Dixon, Sir Daniel Liddell, Henry Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Dixon-Hartland,Sir FredDixon MacIver, David (Liverpool) Thomson,W.Mitchell-(Lanark)
Duncan,Robert (Lanark,Gov'n M'Calmont, Colonel James Thornton, Percy M.
Faber, George Denison (York) Mildmay, Francis Bingham Tuke, Sir John Batty
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Morpeth, Viscount Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Forster, Henry William Pease,Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n Younger, George
Gardner, Ernest (Berks,. East) Percy, Earl
Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Stanley Wilson and Lord Robert Cecil.
Hamilton, Marquess of Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel
Hunt, Rowland Salter, Arthur Clavell

Motion made, and Question, "That the House do now adjourn "—(Mr. Whiteley)—put, and agreed to.

Question put, "That the Question 'That the words of the Bill to the end of page 1, line 23, stand part of the Bill' be now put."

Bill, as amended, to be further considered upon Monday next.

Forward to