EARL RUSSELLmoved an Amendment to provide, in sub-section (3) that the expression "trade dispute" should mean any dispute connected with the employment or non-employment, or the conditions of labour of any "workman or body of workmen," instead of any "person." He desired to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether it was intended that the definition should be construed so as to mean any person. He was not in the least wedded to the words he had used, but he certainly understood that this Bill was intended to refer to what they ordinarily understood by trade disputes; that was to say, a dispute between an employer and 306 ordinary workmen. As the clause stood, however, he ventured to suggest that it would include domestic servants or any other kind of employee. If it were so intended, well and good, but, if not, he would be glad if the words he proposed were adopted or some other words introduced by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe difficulty is, that if you do not use the word "person," where can you draw the line? I do not see why domestic servants should not be allowed to strike under the law as anyone else. I do not think they are likely to do it or that we need stand in any apprehension of it. I cannot suggest any better words than those of the noble Earl, though I am afraid his words are bad, because they would not include clerks, for example, and I doubt if they would include railway guards, and I do not think they would include shop assistants. Our view is not that this Bill should be restricted to workmen in cotton mills, for example, or in collieries. We think that if a strike is legitimate with one set of people a strike is equally legitimate with others, provided it complies with the law. Therefore, I am sorry I cannot accept the noble Lord's proposal.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREmoved to insert, as a new clause—"Nothing in this Act shall apply to anything done in contemplation of or furtherance of a dispute arising from or out of or directly or indirectly connected with the use, occupation, or enjoyment by any person or persons of any land or any building or buildings thereon." He said the Amendment differed entirely from other Amendments which had been considered by their Lordships' House this afternoon, but it was one, nevertheless, that they in Ireland considered of cardinal importance. They wished to make it perfectly clear that, under no circumstances whatever, could the privileges given in this Bill be applied to agrarian disputes in Ireland. 307 It would be quite evident to their Lordships that the real originators of this Bill, the trade unions, had never desired that these privileges should be so extended. There had never been anything in previous Trade Disputes Bills which would make such extension possible, and he believed that it was not the desire of the Government that this extension should be made. Certainly in the eloquent speech delivered by the Lord Chancellor on the Second Reading, he made no reference to his desire for any such extension, and he could not but believe that if it had been the intention of the Government to make such extension he would have been, in duty bound, to refer to it. He thought he would not be mis-representing the speech of the Lord Chancellor when he said that was practically an appeal to their Lordships to restore the status quo ante 1897. Of course there were other points, but that was the main characteristic of the speech. It would not, he thought, be contended that in order to restore the status quo ante 1897, it was necessary that agrarian disputes in Ireland should be given the privileges of this Bill, and he was supported in that presumption by the words used on the 1st November in the House of Commons by the learned Attorney-General, who said that it had never been suggested that agrarian combinations should be entitled to the privileges which this legislation conferred. Therefore, the Government intentions were, from the Opposition point of view, good. Let them examine how far this contention that the Bill did not apply to agrarian disputes in Ireland was supported by the arguments put forward by the Government. The first argument that had been put forward lay in the quotation that he had made from the speech of the Attorney-General in the House of Commons on the Report Stage. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated that it was never intended that the Bill should apply to agrarian troubles in Ireland. That was doubtless very interesting, but it was merely a matter of opinion and the opinion of a distinguished lawyer who had not always had the same view about this Bill. Although the Lord Chancellor stated quite accurately on the Second Reading that the Attorney- 308 General's opinion changed in response to severe pressure in the House of Commons he did not remind their Lordships that that pressure received considerable stimulus from the fact that it was led by the Prime Minister, thus creating an extraordinary situation in the annals of Parliamentary warfare. He was sure he would be forgiven if he said that the Attorney-General would not be the first person he would go to if he wanted legal opinion on this Bill. But, after all, that was a very small point; the essence of the matter lay in the fact that, as it was perfectly well known, and it was admitted by all lawyers, the opinion of the framers of a Bill were not to be quoted when the law came to be construed in the Courts. As a layman he had always considered that to be a monstrous thing. The Lord Chancellor, in construing the Bill at some future date, as he was sure the noble Lord would have to construe it, would need to put out of his mind any knowledge he now had as to the intentions of the framers of the Bill. Therefore, the intention of the framers of the Bill was of no assistance to their Lordships in ascertaining the real intention of the Bill on this particular point. The second argument that had been advanced by His Majesty's Government was also brought forward by the Attorney-General in the House of Commons when he pointed out that a safeguard was provided by the definition words of "trade union." The Attorney-General declared that the United Irish League could not possibly be characterised as a trade union under this Bill. That safeguard was not a very powerful one, because, after all, Clauses 1, 2, and 3 did not apply to trade unions at all, but to individuals acting in the course of a trade dispute. And, therefore, the safeguard, in the definition of the words "trade union" could not be very powerful if it really existed at all. But this protection, even if valid, could be flouted, because those of their Lordships who came from Ireland woul support him when he said the United Irish League and its predecessors had always posed as a sort of trade union. They had never admitted that they were, as he held they were, primarily a political organisation, and, therefore, all that they had to do under the Bill as it now stood was to 309 register cither their central or local branch as a trade union and the protection supposed to be given by the definition words would absolutely vanish. He made no excuse for quoting a very great authority on this point, Professor Dicey, an Oxford man for whom he felt a great deal of respect, and who it was well-known had given very great study to particular circumstances of the Irish question, and his phrase was, "the trick can be performed with ease." Therefore, they were justified, he thought, in taking their stand on the opinion of Professor Dicey that this protection, which the Attorney-General stated was given, was of very little value. On the other hand, what was the condition of affairs on the face of the Bill? In Clause 5, sub-section (3), the following words occurred—
In this Act and in the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, the expression 'trade dispute' means any dispute which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of the employment, or with the conditions of labour, of any person.The result of this was that practically any dispute over a question of employment became a trade dispute. What was the modus operandi of boycotting? It took place in two, or perhaps he should say three, ways. It took place primarily by bringing pressure upon people not to buy goods from or sell goods to a man whom it was desired to boycott. That particular case did not affect his argument at the present time. But the second and most frequent method of boycotting was to bring pressure on a man's servant to leave him or to bring pressure on a man not to employ a particular servant. That in his humble judgment was a trade dispute as defined by the clause he had just read to their Lordships, and there was no division of opinion upon the matter on either side in Ireland. At this very moment—and he had quotations to read to their Lordships if he were challenged—officials of the United Irish League were going about Ireland stating at meetings that a good time was coming because the Trade Disputes Bill would legalise boycotting, and the Nationalist Press—and again he had cuttings which he was prepared to read if chalenged—was openly publishing the fact that boycotting was in future to be legalised. He did not wish to overrate 310 the value of the Nationalist Press—that collection of scurrilous rags which was an insult to the honourable name of journalism,—but nevertheless they had a very considerable influence in the south and west of Ireland, and they were recognised organs of the United Irish League. He had consulted some of the leading lawyers of the land, and there was no doubt in their mind that the Bill as it now stood was applicable to agrarian disputes in Ireland. On all sides it was believed that the power was given of boycotting and intimidation in every form. It was perhaps not heard of so much to-day as it was twenty years ago in the Land League times, but it was still in existence in parts of Ireland in connection with the grass lands agitation. Though protests had been made in the House of Commons that pain had been caused by the fact that English people had been reminded of its existence, there was no doubt whatever that it did still exist and was still a weapon of political and social warfare. He could quite understand that people who invented the system were anxious to have it forgotten, at any rate on this side of the Channel. They naturally would not desire to be reminded that they were connected with those people, who, in the language of three English judges, did enter into a conspiracy by a system of coercion and intimidation to promote an agrarian agitation against the payment of legal rents for the purpose of impoverishing and expelling from the country the Irish landlords, who were styled the English Garrison, and to incite to intimidation, the consequences of which were that crime and outrage were committed by the people incited. Some of the people referred to were still in active leadership with their opponents in Ireland, and whilst he could quite understand their desire not to be reminded of their action of twenty years ago in Ireland, they were still fully able to repeat that action in the cause of political or social strife whenever they desired to do so. He trusted he had said enough to show that it was certain that the Bill would create an absolutely new state of affairs in connection with agrarian disputes in Ireland. But even if there were 311 not certainty, there was certainly uncertainty. It was possible that in the construing of this Act this change which he, and he knew his friends in Ireland, wished to avoid might come about in their political and social relations, and there must be no uncertainty on this point. If there were, the consequences in Ireland would be very grave indeed. Now was the time to see that no uncertainty should exist. Declarations from the Government were of no use to them. They must have it in the Bill. Unquestionably this matter would come before the Courts. It might be decided against them that in future the United Irish League was to be treated to all the privileges of a trade union. They had of course the solemn and sincere assurance from the Government that it was not their desire that this should happen, but if it did happen could they believe the Government would bring in a Bill to set the matter right if the Nationalists desired they should not do so? The Government had shown complete obedience to Mr. Keir Hardie and his thirty odd supporters in regard to this Bill in its initial stages. Could they believe that the Government would be any stronger in dealing with Mr. Redmond and his seventy supporters, if it were necessary to reverse a judicial decision which in its turn reversed the intentions they believed the Government had? He therefore most sincerely asked their Lordships to make the professions of the Government in another place a reality, and to confine the Bill to its intended purpose, the restoration of the status quo ante1897. Whilst no one maintained that the Act of 1875 legalised boycotting, he asked their Lordships to insure that the same might be said of this Bill when it became an Act.
§
Amendment moved—
To insert as a new Clause:—'Nothing in this Act shall apply to anything done in contemplation of or furtherance of a dispute arising from or out of or directly or indirectly connected with the use, occupation, or enjoyment by any person or persons of any land or any building or buildings there or—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI will not occupy more time than is necessary to meet the point the noble Lord has 312 made. I will not enter upon the question of the old special Commission Report from which I think his extract was quoted. I do not want to enter upon the subject or to revive all the controversies in connection with this Bill, but I wish to point out what the noble Lord's Amendment seems to do. Its object is to prevent Irish disputes coming within the Bill. Now the Irish disputes, as we all know, are disputes between landlord and tenant.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI am very much surprised. I have always heard a great deal about Irish disputes, and I have mostly understood them to be disputes between landlord and tenant. Will the noble Lord tell me what other disputes there are?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid the disputes were due to the pressure brought to bear on tenants by the United Irish League, who inaugurated a plan of campaign and insisted on just debts not being paid. That was where the dispute arose, and not between landlord and tenant.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI must be misunderstood. The point is, whether the disputes in question when they emerge upon public notice are disputes between landlord and tenant [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] I have not the quick intellect that belongs to the noble Lord's personality, but to me it always seems that the disputes have always been between landlord and tenant. But let me suppose that they are instigated by designing and malevolent persons outside. I will assume that at all events. That being so, the question is whether the dispute between landlord and tenant instigated by the designing and malevolent persons referred to is a trade dispute within the meaning of this Bill. The description of the kind of dispute affected given in the Bill shows that it does not refer to persons who stand in the relation of landlord and tenant, but to people who stand in the relation of employer and employed, and I do not see how you can torture anything else out of that language. I feel rather 313 nonplussed by the disapprobation of my original statement. I may be wrong, and I stand to be corrected if I am wrong, but it seems to me that disputes between landlords and tenants do not come within this Bill at all.
LORD DUNBOYNEsaid the point was that the landlord had often nothing whatever to do with creating the dispute. The Land League interfered and said a man should not do what he was at liberty to do by the law to-day, and that being so, if he went against the will of the League, he was immediately boycotted, without any regard to any dispute between himself and his landlord.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe point of boycotting is a different one. I was dealing with the question of trade disputes. In regard to what is popularly called boycotting the law still stands. The noble Earl's clause would go to the extent of excluding all building trade disputes, and certainly any strikes of agricultural labourers, either in this country or Ireland. We do not mean to exclude them. We think the agricultural labourer wherever employed ought to come within the Bill. Therefore the Amendment goes too far, and I do not think the noble Earl need be under any misapprehension as to the relation between landlord and tenant.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid his noble friend had clearly put before the Committee the manner in which this Bill, if it became law under present circumstances, would affect the loyal and industrious population of Ireland. Having had considerable experience of that country, and having been Lord-Lieutenant in Ireland from 1886 to 1889, he knew that owing to the action of the United Irish League not only was boycotting rampant all over Ireland, between landlord and tenant, but general boycotting of those employers and employed who were unpopular in the eyes of the United Irish League. These were the people whom the Lord Chancellor had entirely overlooked. He could give the instance of a blacksmith being boycotted for shoeing the horses of an unpopular person.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORWill the noble Marquess allow me to simplify 314 matters? As I understand this Bill it will not in the least affect any transactions of that kind, or any wicked attempt to ruin an individual from spite by boycotting, or any other methods of the United Irish League or any other league. That is not a thing which is done in furtherance of a trade dispute between employer and employed.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid that was exactly what he wanted to have put in black and white in the Bill. If that were done the objection of his noble friend would fall to the ground. The question had already been raised in another place, but the reason why the matter was not pushed forward in the House of Commons was that the speech of the Attorney-General on that occasion was supposed to have given satisfaction to those who were responsible for the Amendment. So satisfactory was the Attorney-General's answer considered as regarded Ireland that Sir Edward Carson stated that they had got the very satisfactory statement that it was not the intention of the Government that the provisions of the Bill in relation to conspiracy and boycotting, legalised by the section; should apply to cases which ordinarily arose in Ireland of disputes between landlord and tenant and the respective organisations which governed those disputes. They in Ireland who represented the loyal and industrious population had not a word to say against trade unions as such, but he feared that under the Bill as it stood these Irish organisations, which had done so much havoc in the past, might be recognised as trade unions and as such be included in the Bill. Why could the Government not put in the Bill in black and white what apparently was; their intention? He asked for a clear definition about which there could be no dispute and no misunderstanding in the Law Courts, so that the Bill if passed would not in any way encourage and assist the most illegal combination that had ever existed in Ireland, namely, the United Irish League.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEI think perhaps it would help to shorten this discussion if we clearly had in our minds exactly what noble Lords opposite are afraid of, because I think what noble 315 Lords think may occur is a case of this kind. A man desires to employ a particular herd, and a league or some body of persons says that if he employs this particular herd he or the herd will be boycotted, and they are afraid that a case of that kind may come under the head of a trade dispute. I should have thought that if there were any dispute between the employer and the employed, between the landlord and the herd—
§ LORD ASHBOURNEThose words have been struck out in the definition at the end.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEYes, but it has to be connected with the employment or non-employment of some person. I confess I cannot see unless there is a dispute between the person who has to be employed and the employer that the transaction can in any way be called a trade dispute merely because some persons outside object to the employment. I am no lawyer, but it seems to me that a case of that kind cannot possibly, by any sort of construction, come under the head of trade dispute.
*Lord BALFOUR or BURLEIGHasked if he might explain the point which the noble Lord said he did not understand. Perhaps an explanation from a layman would carry conviction to the noble Lord's mind. He confessed he shared the apprehension and for this reason. The noble Lord was reminded in the course of his speech of the fact that the words "between employers and workmen" in the Act of 1875 were now repealed. In this Bill a trade dispute was defined as a dispute connected with employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or conditions of labour of any person. It did not matter whether that person was a workman or a member of a trade union or not. He would put a case it was apprehended might happen. Supposing a tenant took a farm from which the previous tenant had been evicted, or somebody incurred the anger of the Land League or National League, or whatever was in existence at the moment, and the league said to one of his servants, "You shall not work for that man," that would be at once a dispute con- 316 nected with the conditions of labour of some person and all the provisions of this law would come into force. He could not sue or get any redress. It seemed to him under these conditions the apprehensions were very great. Another section of the Bill took from the cognisance of the law acts committed merely in contemplation of a dispute. It seemed to him the case was complete that there was a very grave apprehension that under these circumstances all the machinery of the Bill would be employed in the very cases which noble Lords from Ireland had in their minds.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI would not inflict myself again on your Lordships, but one point about employer and employed has been adverted to. Why was it left out? There again decisions of the Law Courts come in. It was held that disputes between employers and workmen meant only disputes between employers and their own workmen, and consequently what we call secondary or sympathetic strikes were unprotected. It was held by the Courts that secondary or sympathetic strikes were unprotected, which was really unreasonable, because the men are entitled to act as a whole. There is no arrière pensée on our part. The omission of the words "employers and workmen" was recommended by the Royal Commission and therefore it was done. It has no bearing on this question, because it does not affect what is a trade dispute at all. I hope I have chased that hare.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORYou will have to decide that. I did my best. I think the point was made by Lord Balfour of Burleigh that in some clauses of this Bill the exemption or privileges are bestowed only in cases of contemplation of trade disputes or furtherance of trade disputes, but still it is in contemplation of a trade dispute and not in contemplation of a dispute between landlord and tenant. The definition "trade dispute" is one which relates solely to employers. You cannot call 317 it a condition of labour when it is a condition of tenancy. The "conditions of labour" was the only phrase to which the noble Lord referred. If you speak of a tenant and say, these are the conditions under which he holds his tenancy, you would not say they were the conditions of his labour.
§ *Lord ASHBOURNEsaid everyone must admit the great courtesy of the Lord Chancellor and his desire to satisfy everyone, but he would be more relieved if the Lord Chancellor were expressing his judicial opinion on the Woolsack that there was no possibility of a foundation for misapprehension. The question was one of the highest importance and the gravest seriousness. It was obvious that those who lived in Ireland had the best opportunity of knowing what they were talking about. There was such a thing as boycotting, and there were as a fact many outrages committed in connection with the occupation of land which sometimes resulted in boycotting and other grave forms of injustice. No one could defend these things, and they should not be encouraged or the laws weakened. These were commonplaces of the administration of justice. It was indicated by Lord Donough more that the drafting of the Bill—he was sure with no sinister intention—was such as to suggest grave doubts in some legal minds whether the words of the Bill might not legalise and therefore encourage boycotting, and that thus the operations of combinations in Ireland that were directed to the assertion of their own power and law as against the law of the land might be encouraged and supported. These were grave fears. The answers that had been given were hardly answers to those who lived under the painful conditions he had referred to. The noble Lord said he thought he had given a satisfactory answer to the discussion. He recognised his earnest desire to give a satisfactory reply, but although nobody had a greater respect for him and his opinions personally he was not satisfied with that reply. The Bill was framed in a way which made every transaction that came within it immune from an action for tort, and it was impossible to obtain an injunction against 318 the continuance of the wrong. The definition of trade dispute was so wide that it was impossible to read it without seeing that it covered any dispute between employers and employed. The words were, "any dispute connected with the employment or non-employment of any person." There was nothing said by whom or between whom the dispute was to be. It was to be "any dispute in reference to the employment of any person." Where were the narrowing words? They would not have the benevolence of the Lord Chancellor or the guidance of the Attorney-General's trained mind to assist them after this Bill became law. He would be glad to be corrected if he was wrong, but he did not think he had misrepresented or distorted a single word in the Bill. To his mind the Bill was full of peril and doubt, and on the plain consideration of the words its working might entail a real danger. Was there to be no remedy for that risk? Lord Donoughmore had put an Amendment on the Paper framed with the honest desire of trying to stop the danger of legalising boycotting, and intended to meet the state of things to which he had referred. The argument put forward against the Amendment was that it might also cover a building trade dispute. If that were so they strike could out the word "building," and if any other words could be suggested which would meet the difficulty he had pointed out they would be seriously and most favourably considered by the Opposition with a view to their adoption. He could not say anything fairer than that. The noble and learned Lord had said that the disputes in Ireland were all between I landlord and tenant. Unfortunately there were a great many disputes of that kind in Ireland, but they were by no means limited to that class of disputes. The relations of landlord and tenant might have a good many other things dependent upon them, and there were many other disputes leaving the landlord out of the question altogether. It was quite unreasonable to suggest that all disputes in Ireland had the narrow bearing indicated by the noble Lord. Anyone acquainted with the affairs of 319 Ireland for some years back must know that this unfortunate practice of boycotting had prevailed to a large extent. It was a most painful and distressing form of persecution and made a man's life a burden to him. Surely it was not at all unreasonable to listen to the complaints of those who knew Ireland and who thought that if this Bill passed in its present shape it might possibly encourage boycotting, a danger which everybody would like to minimise. He trusted that their Lordships would see the importance of the Amendment.
§ Bill reported with Amendments to the House.
§ Standing Committee negatived.
§ The Report of Amendments to be lord Ashbourne
320THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREasked leave to withdraw the last six words of his new clause. It would then read—
Nothing in this Act shall apply to anything done in contemplation of or furtherance of a dispute arising from or out of or directly or indirectly connected with the use, occupation, or enjoyment by any person or persons of any land.
§ On Question, "That those words be there inserted," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 20.
319| CONTENTS. | ||
| Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.) | Wicklow, E. | De Freyne, L. |
| Devonshire, D. | Deramore, L. | |
| Newcastle, D. | Churchill, V. [Teller.] | Dunboyne, L. |
| Wellington, D. | Falmouth, V. | Forester, L. |
| Hill, V. | Grey de Ruthyn, L. | |
| Ailesbury, M. | Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) | Hylton, L. |
| Lansdowne, M. | Kenlis. L. (M. Headfort.) | |
| Kinnaird, L. | ||
| Albemarle, E. | Addington, L. | Knaresborough, L. |
| Camperdown, E. | Ampthill, L. | Lawrence, L. |
| Cawdor, E. | Ardilaun, L. | Leith of Fyvie, L. |
| Clarendon, E. | Armstrong, L. | Lovat, L. |
| Dartrey, E. | Ashbourne, L. | Macnaghten, L. |
| Devon, E. | Atkinson, L. | Oranmore and Browne, L. |
| Drogheda, E. | Balfour, L. | Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) |
| Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.) | Barrymore, L. | Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.) |
| Mayo, E. | Belhaven and Stenton, L. | Rathdonnell. L. |
| Northbrook, E. | Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) | Redesdale, L. |
| Onslow, E. | Braye, L. | Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.) |
| Radnor, E. | Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.) | Sudley, L. (E. Arran.) |
| Stradbroke, E. | Clonbrock, L. | Talbot de Malahide, L. |
| Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) | Colehester, L. | Wolverton. L. |
| Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] | Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.) | Zouche of Haryngworth, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Crewe. E. (L. President.) | Coleridge, L. | Haversham, L. |
| Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.) | Courtney of Penwith, L. | Pirrie, L. |
| Denman, L. [Teller.] | Reay, L. | |
| Beauchamp, E. | Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.) | Ribblesdale [Teller.] |
| Craven, E. | Sandhurst, L. | |
| Portsmouth, E. | Emly, L. | Tweedmouth, L. |
| Eversley, L. | Weardale, L. | |
| Castletown, L. | Fitzmaurice, L. |
§ received on Friday next and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 236.)
§ House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock, till To-morrow a quarter past Four o'clock.