§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSmoved an Amendment providing that it should be lawful for "not more than three persons" (instead of "one or more persons"), acting on behalf of a trade union, to attend at or near the house of a workman for the purpose of peacefully obtaining or communicating information, or of peacefully persuading any person to work or to abstain from working.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 1, line 13, to leave out the words 'one or more,' and to insert the words not more than three."—(The, Earl of Wemyss.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe effect of this Amendment is, in the case of picketing, to limit the number of persons to not more than three, and the noble Earl behind me (Earl Russell) proposes in a subsequent Amendment to limit the number of persons who can be engaged in picketing to twenty. The number of twenty may be far too large in a small strike, and a fortiori there might be cases—a dock strike, for instance—where three persons would not be considered enough in a great strike. I ought to remind your Lordships that the permission given in this Bill to picket is only where the picketing is for the purpose of peacefully obtaining or communicating information or of peacefully persuading any person to work or to abstain from working. If the practice is carried out so as to lead to intimidation or to any reasonable apprehension in the mind of innocent persons of violence or wrong, then the picketing would not be done merely for the purpose of peacefully obtaining or communicating information or of peacefully persuading others. Not only so, but alongside this clause there still remain the stringent provisions of the Act of 1875, which are very likely familiar to your Lordships and which are completely unaffected by this clause. That Act makes penal the using of violence or intimidation, the injuring of property, the persistent following of people from place to place, the hiding of tools and so forth, or watching and besetting. Apart from that, moreover, there is the common law of the land, which of itself provides ample protection against those who seek to take advantage of this clause in order to commit an injustice.
EARL RUSSELLsaid he had an Amendment on the Paper similar to that which had been moved by Lord Wemyss, and he thought it might with advantage be discussed at the same time. It had reference to the number of persons allowed to picket. He had frequently been told privately that his objections to this clause as it stood were founded on his failing to understand it, and he would be glad if 278 the Lord Chancellor could succeed in persuading him that the clause as it stood was a reasonable one. It was difficult to understand how this could be a reasonable or even a possible clause to work. It in effect made it lawful for a gathering of a thousand persons to assemble outside a house in order, for example, to persuade a footman to leave his employment, and he was curious to know how the Lord Chancellor could justify it. A much smaller gathering of ladies assembled outside Mr. Asquith's house, and they were dealt with very severely. The opening words, "it shall be lawful, "were a distinct authority by statute to do a particular act creating, perhaps, obstruction in the streets. It was said that twenty persons might not be enough in the case of a large dock strike. Surely a group of twenty persons at any one entrance would be sufficient to convey information or peacefully to persuade anyone. If the object was to meet workmen coming out and communicate facts to them he submitted that twenty persons were ample.
§ *LORD AVEBURYsupported the Amendment, and said that three persons were quite sufficient to give information. Any greater number led up to intimidation. In his speech in moving the Second Reading of the Bill the Lord Chancellor had referred, with as near an approach to a sneer as his kindly nature allowed, to the opinions of jurists and professors. Surely, however, their views were entitled to great weight. It was said again that in the House of Commons the great manufacturers made no objection to the provisions of the Bill. The numerous representations sent in now, however, left no doubt as to their views. The Chambers of Commerce supported them. It might be said that employers were interested parties, and that it was natural that they denounced the Bill. Bankers were in a different position. Their interest was in the prosperity of British commerce, and as President of the English Bankers he believed he represented their general, if not almost unanimous, opinion that the Bill as it stood was unjust and unwise. It was an encouragement, it might almost be said an invitation, to strikes. Strikes on the 279 whole had diminished employment, and lowered wages. Manufacturers were often compelled to refuse orders, if the time allowed was somewhat short, from the fear of a strike. Moreover, many strikes were the result of contests, not between employers and employed, but between different trade unions each claiming their right to do the same work. Were they to be allowed to intimidate each other? He believed the workmen would be better than the law, but the law should protect the individual workman. The Amendment would not interfere with the ostensible object of the clause. Even one man could give the information. Moreover, while there might be some reason for picketing the works, why should the house be mentioned? The only reason for picketing a man's house was to put pressure on a man by frightening his wife and children. This was cruel and unmanly. He believed that on reflection the leaders of the working men would see that the clause as it stood was intolerable, and he hoped their Lordships would support the Amendment. Before sitting down he would like to express his regret that a Bill dealing with trade disputes should not contain some provision dealing with strikes in the case of companies providing important services to the public, such as railway, gas and electric companies. Of course the employees were entitled to fair remuneration for their services, and if they were dissatisfied, to go elsewhere; but due notice should be given, so that the public should not be put to unnecessary inconvenience.
§ LORD COLERIDGEpointed out that if workmen in large numbers watched and beset a man's house with a view to compelling him to do or to abstain from doing that which he had a lawful right to do and intimidated him or his wife or children, or injured his property, that was an offence dealt with by the Act of 1875, and, therefore, that point was already met by the law. Earl Russell's contention was that if workmen were in greater numbers than twenty they should be unable to do by law what they might do by law if they were less than twenty. That would make it imperative on each workman to count the number of the crowd he was in, and if in the course of 280 the strike some other persons joined the crowd so as to make the number twenty-one or twenty-two, everyone in that crowd would be liable to consequences which would not ensue if the crowd was less than twenty. As these Amendments now stood, they only permitted the limited number—in the one case of three, and in the other of twenty—as the number which could lawfully watch and beset at the place where the men worked. Did Lord Wemyss mean that at works which had twenty entrances three men should distribute themselves among those entrances; or were there to be three at each or twenty at each? He submitted that the Amendments would lead to great difficulties, and that they ought not to be considered.
§ LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDsaid he could not support either the Amendment of his noble friend near him or that of the noble Lord opposite. This question of numbers was considered as far back as the year 1875, and the conclusion was then come to that a limit of numbers in this connection was impracticable. If a limit of three were enacted, how were the three men to be selected? In the case of works being stopped and some hundreds of men being thrown out of work, they could not select a certain number and say, "You three, or you twenty, men shall be legal picketers and the rest illegal." He was satisfied that it was impracticable to fix a limit.
§ LORD NORTHBOURNEreminded their Lordships that when these disputes arose there was always more or less a state of war. Lord Lindley in a letter to The Times had said that to speak of "peaceful persuasion" was little less than cant and hypocisry. He would not go quite so far as that, but in his view the expression "peaceful persuasion "was almost a contradiction in terms. Those who controlled trade unions had very large powers in their hands. These powers at times of great excitement might be unduly strained and there might be done injury not merely to the workmen themselves but which might possibly threaten the fabric of society. It was a curious fact in connection with these industrial disputes that it had never been his lot to speak to a single woman, 281 the wife or sister or a relation in any degree of a workman on strike, who did not condemn these strikes as well as the combinations which promoted them. He trusted that their Lordships would safeguard the clause.
§ *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I venture to submit to your Lordships that we should do well not to insist upon these numerical restrictions upon the number of persons who may take part in picketing operations, whether it be the lower limit proposed by the noble Earl at the Table or the higher limit proposed by the noble Earl opposite. I think we have heard enough to make it clear that such an attempt would present almost insuperable difficulties. I fail to see how it would be possible to distinguish between the authorised picketers and the unauthorised allies who would certainly associate themselves with them. Surely, what matters is not so much the number of persons engaged in picketing as the thing which they do and the manner in which they do it; and I confess I am much more disposed to look for a safeguard in the terms of this Bill as it is drafted and in the terms of the Act of 1875 to which the noble and learned Lord opposite referred. I cannot help thinking that under the law as explained by the noble and learned Lord it should be possible to deal with such cases of domestic persecution and besetting as my noble friend Lord Avebury mentioned just now. That being so, I shall certainly vote against the Amendment, whether it be the Amendment of the noble Earl at the Table or the Amendment of the noble Earl opposite.
§ *THE EARL OF WEMYSSmaintained that if peaceful persuasion was intended three men were more than sufficient. The peaceful persuasion of picketing was the peaceful persuasion of the policeman. When a policeman said "Move on" people moved on. Why? Not on account of that one policeman, but the knowledge that behind him were sixteen thousands more here in London. He held, therefore, that peaceful persuasion could be carried out as effectively with three as with a larger number. But, in the circumstances, he would withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL RUSSELLwho had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out "one or more persons," and to insert "any number of persons not exceeding twenty," said it was not now his intention to move his Amendment.
*LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGHmoved an Amendment providing that it should be lawful for persons to attend at or near a house or place "peaceably and in a reasonable manner" for the purposes prescribed in the clause. He said the Amendment which the Committee had just been discussing dealt with the question of numbers. The Amendment which he had put upon the Paper dealt, not with the question of numbers but with that which he thought was very much more important in itself, the question of method. He was most anxious they should all be quite certain that they understood really and fully what it was exactly they were asked to do by this Bill, and that they should understand really and without doubt the practical effect of the change in the existing law which they were asked to make. The law as it stood was perfectly familiar by this time to the great majority of their Lordships. The Lord Chancellor had quoted parts of the Act of 1875 in arguing against the last Amendment, and he properly and fairly said that the law as it at present stood forbad certain things and allowed certain others, such as attending near the house or place where a person resided or the works where the business was going on. But the provision in the Act of 1875 differed from the proposal now before their Lordships in one very important respect. In that case the permission given was that certain things should not be deemed to be watching and besetting. The first point he (Lord Balfour) made— it was not a very important point— was that the enactment which was now proposed was not a mere permission, but a distinct enactment that certain things should be lawful. He urged their Lordships to consider very carefully that the fact that this was now to be the substantive enactment made it even more necessary than before to guard carefully the conditions and 283 restrictions under which that lawful act might be done. The clause as it now stood in the Bill ran as follows—
It shall be lawful for one or more persons, acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union or of an individual employer or firm in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, to attend at or near a house or place where a person resides or works or carries on business or happens to be, if they so attend merely for the purpose of peacefully obtaining or communicating information, or of peacefully persuading any person to work or abstain from working.He pointed out that there had been a very material change in the Bill as compared with its appearance when it was introduced by His Majesty's Government in the other House. At that time it was distinctly laid down that the attendance of persons acting on their own behalf or otherwise was to be "peaceably and in a reasonable manner. "Those words had been cut out, and there were now substituted for them words to the effect that they were to attend merely for the purpose of peacefully obtaining or communicating information, or of peacefully persuading any person to work or to abstain from working. There was a presumption that if their purpose was peaceful it was relatively unimportant what they did. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, shook his head, but if that was not really meant, why not say so? It seemed to him a most undoubted fact that as originally drafted the clause was distinctly intended to strike at intimidation, and that the clause as now framed was not nearly so strong in that direction. There was great danger if the Bill passed in its present form of its being construed to weaken the law. To describe the clause as one which legalised only peaceful picketing came in his mind very near to being a dishonest description. Admitting that there had been a mandate or demand for the alteration of the law, it could not be said that there was a mandate against the particular phrase he was asking their Lordships to insert. It was the proposal of the Government, and the word "peacefully" appeared in this connection in the Bill of the leaders of the Labour Party themselves. He appealed to their Lordships no tto sacrifice the great principles of justice and liberty for any supposed mandate. If he received any support at all he intended to 284 take the opinion of their Lordships by a division.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 1, line 16, after the word 'attend,' to insert the words 'peaceably and in a reasonable manner."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
§ The LORD CHANCELLORI am very well pleased to take the instance which the noble Lord has brought forward, and his plea on behalf of justice and liberty is a fair illustration of the accuracy of the charges which have been made against the Bill. The purpose of this clause is to place the law as it was intended or believed to be in the year 1875. Picketing may be the worst of all things, but it was legalised—I think most wisely—by a Conservative Government in 1875. The language of the statute faces you, and you can by no means escape from that conclusion. Picketing was legalised for the purpose of obtaining or communicating information; it was not legalised in the terms of the Bill for the purpose of "peacefully persuading." As I stated the other night in the presence of Lord Cross, who was Home Secretary in 1875, Lord Cross, on being asked whether he would accept an Amendment to include such words, said that this was already implied in the Bill. It was afterwards discovered by a decision of the Courts of law that that was not the case, that picketing for the purpose of peaceful persuasion was unlawful. This clause is intended to restore the law to what it would have been had that been included in the Act of 1875. As regards the form of words, I protest against the assumption throughout the discussion that when picketing takes place, violent, riotous, and tumultous picketing is authorised. That has been the substratum of the arguments; I wholly deny it. There are powers under the statute of 1875 and under the common law sufficient to prevent the degradation or misuse of this liberty. In speaking of picketing, therefore, we must accept the meaning attached to it by statute and common law. All I can say is that we are plagiarists. We have copied the Act of 1875. The language in the last unrepealed paragraph of Section 7 of that Act, which has had the effect of legalising picketing, contains not a word 285 about peaceably or reasonably. There were great lawyers in this House in those days. Lord Cairns knew how utterly absurd it was to accumulate a number of statements merely warning against certain acts. In the present case you might just as well put into the measure "You must not commit murder." The words in the Amendment were omitted from the clause for the sake of putting in words corresponding to the Act of 1875. The word "peaceably" has been put in lower down as a concession to the apprehensions of those who are afraid some violence will be committed. That is my answer. To my mind these words "peaceably and in a reasonable manner" would not really add anything at all.
§ LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDDoes the noble and learned Lord wish the picketing to take place "peaceably and in a reasonable manner?"
§ The LORD CHANCELLORCertainly.
§ LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDThen why not say so? If they wanted picketing to be done "peaceably and in a reasonable manner" the Committee ought to say so as clearly as possible. At present the clause only said "going there for the purpose; "that was not enough. A man might go there for a peaceful purpose and remain there for a violent one.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNpointed out that the explanation just given by the Lord Chancellor was not the view originally taken by the Government. When the Government Bill was brought in it contained these words "peaceably and in a reasonable manner." If the Government thought they were necessary in their own Bill, why did they not think them necessary now? This was not the Bill brought in by the Government originally, and these words were only struck out upon the Report stage.
§ The LORD CHANCELLORI think the noble Earl, as an old Parliamentary hand, must have perceived that the Government introduced proposals originally in a form with which the House did not agree, and there were differences 286 of opinion in all sections of the House in regard to the form of the Bill. The question was, what would be the best thing in the end? It is true that the Government altered these words, but they put in others which they thought would be quite as effective and more conformable with precedent.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNDoes the noble and learned Lord consider the word "peacefully" as strong where it is?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI think it will have exactly the same effect.
§ LORD COLERIDGEasked if Lord Balfour would accept the word "peaceably" and excise "in a reasonable manner." These words were struck out in the Commons because they would open the door for very wide construction by different tribunals as to what was a reasonable manner.
*LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGHHas the noble Lord got power from the Government to offer me "peaceably" if I strike out "and in a reasonable manner"?
§ *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI think the noble and learned Lord produced a good ad hominem argument against us when he referred to the fact that the Act of 1875, for which a Conservative Government was responsible, contained no reference at all to the peaceful character of these operations, and I admit that the Bill to that extent is better than the Act of 1875, because the word "peacefully" finds a place in it. But the point of my noble friend behind me is that grammatically the word now comes in the wrong place. It seems to me, from that point of view, that the clause is open to exception on the ground that the adjective "peacefully" seems to apply to the intention of the persons picketing rather than to the acts in which those persons may take part. Would not the noble and learned Lord agree to transfer the word "peaceably" to the fourth line of the clause, so that it should govern everything that comes after? In that case perhaps my noble friend Lord Balfour might be content to dispense with the words "in a reasonable 287 manner." I think at any rate that Amendment would have the good effect of making the true sense of the clause plainly intelligible.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThere is nothing I dislike more than saying "No" if I can possibly help it. This matter was fully considered by Ministers in the House of Commons and by the House, and I am afraid I cannot consent to the substitution. If your Lordships, however, think fit to effect the substitution I do not think it would make very much difference. But the matter was fully considered, and I do not like to set aside the deliberate consideration and choice of words which I know were taken with a view of carrying out what the noble Lord desires, namely, that the thing should be perfectly orderly.
*LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGHIf the Committee is agreeable I am quite willing to withdraw the words "in a reasonable manner;" and divide only in the first instance on "peacefully."
Earl RUSSELLobjected to that course. There seemed to him very good reason for inserting the words "in a reasonable manner." It was possible to be quite peaceful and not to be at all reasonable. For instance, if a large crowd of people sat down in front of a man's house they might be quite peaceful, but he did not think anyone would argue that that would be at all reasonable. Unless these words were inserted in the clause he did not see what protection there would be. This clause went far beyond an Amendment of the Act of 1875. Did the words "it shall be lawful" mean no more than the words "it shall not be unlawful."
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe words in the Act of 1875 which assume a negative form followed by an exception have always been held to have, and have undoubtedly, the effect of authorising picketing for the purpose of obtaining information. You cannot make it more so if you say "it shall be lawful." Those are mere questions of drafting. If the noble Earl will turn his attention to the section of the Act of 1875, he will find that it is by no means an easy matter to dovetail the words "peaceful persuasion"into the clause. I prefer to say in perfectly clear language what is meant, and if you do not mean it to be lawful do not hide your purpose; by the use of circumlocution. I believe this clause has no further effect than to add to the provision of the Act of 1875 the power to picket for peaceful persuasion.
§ *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI should have been glad if the noble and learned Lord has seen his way to accept the suggestion which I made as a compromise. But I was struck by the reason which he gave for refusing it—that this point had been settled after careful consideration in another place, and that he was not at liberty to accept an Amendment of the kind which I proposed. I have felt throughout these discussions that this Bill ought to be allowed to pass; and, that being so, I do not feel disposed to join in imposing upon noble Lords opposite an Amendment which they apparently regard themselves as not able to accept, and which I presume would not be accepted if it went to another place.
§ On Question, "That the words 'peaceably and in a reasonable manner' be there inserted," their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 49.
289| CONTENTS. | ||
| Newcastle, D. | Lonsdale, E. | Falkland, V. |
| Somerset, D. | Malmesbury, E. | Hill, V. |
| Wellington, D. | Mayo, E. | Knutsford, V. |
| Orford, E. | Llandaff, V. | |
| Ailesbury, M. | Romney, E. | |
| Zetland, M. | Russell, E. | Salisbury, L. Bp. |
| Scarborough, E. | ||
| Cathcart, E. | Stamford, E. | Abinger, L. |
| Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) | Stradbroke, E. | Addington, L. |
| Allerton, L. | ||
| Lichfield, E. | Colville of Culross, V. | Armstrong, L. |
| Atkinson, L. | Digby, L. | Moncrieff, L. |
| Avebury, L. | Dunboyne, L. | Newlands, L. |
| Balfour, L. [Teller.] | Dunleath, L. | Northbourne, L. |
| Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.) | Elphinstone, L. | Oranmore and Browne, L. |
| Barrymore, L. | Forester, L. | Poltimore, L. |
| Belhaven and Stenton, L. | Gerard, L. | Ponsonby, L.(E. Bessborough.) |
| Borthwick, L. | Grey de Ruthyn, L. | Rathdonnell, L. |
| Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) | Harris, L. [Teller.] | Sinclair, L. |
| Braye, L. | Hastings, L. | Somerhill, L.(M. Clanricarde) |
| Calthorpe, L. | Hylton, L. | Stanmore, L. |
| Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.) | James, L. | Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.) |
| Clinton, L. | Kelvin, L. | |
| Clonbrock, L. | Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.) | Talbot, de Malahide, L. |
| Colchester, L. | Ventry, L. | |
| De Freyne, L. | Leith of Fyvie, L. | Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.) |
| Deramore, L. | Macnaghten, L. | |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.) | Boston, L. | Lyveden, L. |
| Brassey, L. | Manners, L. | |
| Crewe, E. (L. President.) | Coleridge, L. | Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.) |
| Courtney of Penwith, L. | Monkswell, L. | |
| Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.) | Davey, L. | O'Hagan, L. |
| Denman, L. [Teller.] | Pirrie, L. | |
| Beauchamp, E. | Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.) | Reay, L. |
| Craven, E. | Ribblesdale, L. | |
| Jersey,E. | Emly, L. | Sanderson, L. |
| Kimberley,E. | Eversley, L. | Sandhurst, L. |
| Lytton, E. | Fitzmaurice, L. | Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.) |
| Onslow, E. | Glantawe, L. | Sherborne, L. |
| Portsmouth, E. | Granard, L. (E. Granard.) [Teller.] | Stanley of Alderley, L. |
| Shaftesbury, E. | Sudley, L. (E. Arran.) | |
| Temple, E. | Grimthorpe, L. | Teynham, L. |
| Hamilton of Dalzell, L. | Tweedmouth, L. | |
| Southwark, L. Bp. | Haversham, L. | Weardale, L. |
| Heneage, L. | Winterstoke, L. | |
| Ampthill, L. | Lawrence, L. |
On Question, Clause 5 agreed to.
§ *THE EARL OF WEMYSSmoved to amend Clause 2 by making it read that it should be lawful to attend only "at or near each entrance of a place where a person works or carries on business." He felt very strongly that picketing should be confined to the works. To picket a man's house would make life unbearable for himself and his wife and family, and it would be an intolerable thing in a free country.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 1, line 16, after the word 'near,' to insert the words 'each entrance of,' and to leave out the words 'house or."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI think your Lordships will have to consider whether you are going back upon the legislation of 1875. In the Act of 1875 this was the language that was used—
Attending at or near the house or place where a person resides or works or carries on business or happens to be, or the approach to such house or place.290 We have followed those words literally with this exception, that we have not put in the words, "the approach to such house or place," thereby limiting the clause. I do not say that what has been decided in the past ought still always to govern us, but I submit that to go back on the legislation of thirty-one years ago in this case would be a mistake.
§ LORD AVEBURYsaid he was surprised that the noble and learned Lord who was advocating such extraordinary changes in the law as it stood as present should object to such a small change in the Act of 1875 as that proposed by Lord Wemyss. They had received representations from manufacturers all over the country to the effect that it was most unjust that a man should be beset at his own house. It was quite sufficient that power should be given to attend at the place where a person worked or carried on business. It was most unfair that a man should be 291 followed home to his house and his wife and children frightened in order that he should be intimidated.
EARL RUSSELLsaid that although he had put down an Amendment to the same effect, he thought the addition of the words "in a reasonable manner" covered the objections to picketing a man at his private house, and he did not therefore propose to support Lord Wemyss's Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ *THE EARL OF WEMYSSmoved to add, at the end of sub-section (1) of Clause 2, a proviso to the effect that no person should, after being requested by any person annoyed by his conduct, or by any constable instructed by such person, to move away, so act as wilfully to obstruct, insult, or annoy such person; and that no person should act in such a manner as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of any other person that violence would be used to him or his wife or family or damage done to his property. If their Lordships had carried the former Amendment confining picketing to the works this proviso would not have been necessary, but as they had not done so he begged to submit it.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 1, line 20, after the word 'working,' to insert the words 'Provided that no person shall, after being requested by any person annoyed by his conduct, or by any constable instructed by such person to move away, so act as wilfully to obstruct, insult, or annoy such person. Provided that no person shall act in such a manner as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of any other person that violence will be used to him or his wife or family, or damage be done to his property."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe first part of this proviso is very curious. It provides that no person shall, after being requested by any person annoyed by his conduct, or by any constable instructed by such person, to move away, so act as wilfully to obstruct, insult, or annoy such person. The law prohibits that already, and prohibits it without a constable being invoked. The second part of the Amendment is that no person shall act in such a manner as to 292 cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of any other person that violence will be used to him or his wife or family, or damage done to his property. That, of course, is against the common law, too; but it is also against the Statute of 1875, which provides that any person may be convicted who does these things—
Uses violence to or intimidates such other person or his wife or children, or injures his property.I venture to think, therefore, that the proviso is superfluous.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ LORD LEITH OF FYVIEmoved the insertion of a new provision stating that the persons attending at a house for picketing purposes should only be allowed to do so after "due notice shall have been given to the police authorities in the district affected of the contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute." This precaution was not so much in the interest of those engaged in the trade dispute as for the benefit of the persons outside who might gather in the streets and the suffering women and children of the workmen. It was difficult for human nature to be reasonable on such occasions, and he certainly claimed that the women and children should be saved from the possible effects of an industrial disaster. He had experience of these trade disputes in this and other countries, and he could hardly say that he had ever found the methods of men on strike to be peaceful. In the United States these disputes eventually led sometimes to a state akin to civil war, and he feared that in the case of a large railway or dock strike here somewhat similar features might be reproduced. It became imperative, therefore, to protect from suffering those who were not connected with the trade dispute.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 1, line 20, after the word 'working,' to insert the words 'provided that due notice shall have been given to the police authorities in the district affected of the contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute."—(Lord Leith of Fyvie.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThere is no doubt that in some parts of the United States strikes have led to the 293 most violent and terrible collisions. I am happy to think that in this country there has never been anything of this serious character, although there have been at times acts of violence and intimidation which have to be, and I hope always will be, properly punished by the law. The noble Lord proposes that notice of the contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute should be given to the police. How can you give notice of the contemplation of a dispute?
§ LORD LEITH OF FYVIEEither by telephone or written message.
§ The LORD CHANCELLORI was not speaking of the mechanical methods by which the information could be imparted, but how such a fact as the contemplation of a trade dispute could be imparted. It is not a specific fact; it is an attitude of mind. The police are almost certain to know in advance all about the likelihood of a trade dispute occurring, for if any danger is likely to arise the employer is sure to give notice to the police.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.