§ Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
§ LORD DANESFORTI beg to move that this Report be now received.
§ Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord, Danesfort.)
EARL RUSSELLMy Lords, on this Motion I would like to ask whether it is thought that this Bill really goes far enough. On the Second Reading the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London indicated that he would put down some Amendments to strengthen the Bill, but 58 so far as I know he did not put down any; at all events I saw none on the Paper. I am not sure whether the Bill does go far enough to protect the people it is intended to protect. Can any noble Lord tell the House exactly what is meant by the first part of Clause 5 which says that a theatrical employer shall be guilty of an offence who, during the course of a theatrical engagement, "abandons the theatical performers"? I do not exactly know what human action is indicated by the word "abandon." We know what abandoning a ship is, but I do not know how or in what way you can abandon theatrical performers. The language does seem to me remarkably vague.
§ LORD DANESFORTMy Lords, the answer to the question of the noble Earl is this. There is a definition of "abandoned" in subsection (2) of Clause 5. But for that definition I think the noble Earl's criticism would be well founded, but there being a definition that is, I think, an answer to his question. As regards the Bill not going far enough, many of us entirely agree with the noble Earl, but the difficulty was this. This Bill came from another place as an agreed Bill. It had the approval of the theatrical employers on the one hand and of the employees on the other hand, as well as of the Home Office. There are many who would have liked to strengthen the Bill and to make it a good deal more drastic in order to remove what undoubtedly are very great abuses, but it was realised that if the Bill was to be got through this Session it would have to be accepted by your Lordships' House substantially in the form in which it came from another place. Upon that consideration the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London was good enough not to put clown Amendments which he indicated were desirable on Second Reading, and every one is most anxious that the Bill should go through, even in this somewhat incomplete form, this Session. I hope, therefore, the noble Earl will accept that explanation.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendments reported accordingly.