Sitting of 12 July 1875

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [July] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1869, Amendment* [250].
First Reading—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (Loudon) * [251].
Second Reading—Washington Treaty (Claims Distribution)* [218]; Public Works Loan (Money) * [243]; Traffic Regulation (Dublin) * [244]; Post Office (Superannuation and Gratuities) * [245]; Salmon Fishery Act Provisional Order (Taw and Torridge) * [247].
Committee—Conspiracy and Protection of Property [204]—R.P.; Militia Laws Consolidation and Amendment (re-comm.) [202]—R.P.; General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation* [227]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Employers and Workmen [259]; County Courts (re-comm.)* [225]; Police Expenses* [187]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation * [228]; Drugging of Animals (rc-eomm.)* [235].
Considered as amended—Tramways Orders Confirmation* [220].
Withdrawn—Elementary Education Acts Amendment* [234].

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. EUSTACE SMITHgave Notice that in the event of this Bill not being proceeded with that night, he should, on the next occasion of its being put on the Paper, move that the Order he discharged.
Afterwards—
MR. RATHBONEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he could fix a day for the measure being proceeded with in Committee?
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, it is difficult to fix a day now for the discussion of the Bill, but after the Labour Laws and Agricultural Holdings Bills are passed,
1326
or a considerable advance is made with them, the Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment Bill is the measure I shall endeavour to bring before the consideration of the House.

THE INDIAN BUDGET.—QUESTION.
MR. J. HOLMSasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If, in anticipation of the annual Financial Statement for India, he will place upon the Table of the House the Army Estimates for that Country for the current financial year, with a Statement showing the actual number of the rank and file of the European and Indian troops, together with the ages of the men, according to the latest information in the possession of the Government; also stating the total annual military charge during each of the past five years, including expenditure of every kind in India on barracks, roads, and military works, &c. as well as all charges made at home on account of the Army in India?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, in reply, said, that the information asked by the hon. Member respecting the Army Estimates for India, with other particulars, were already contained in the Annual Returns laid before Parliament, but he had no objection to produce this information in a separate form.

INDIA—BURMAH AND WESTERN CHINA.—QUESTION.
MR. ALEXANDER M'AETHURasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he can lay upon the Table any Report showing the nature and probable value of the trade which it is proposed to open up through Burmah with the western provinces of China?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, the recent Expedition which was attacked in Chinese Burmah was sent to report upon the trades, routes, and the prospects of trade between Burmah and Western China. We propose to lay upon the Table of the House Papers relating to this Expedition, including a Report of the Chief Commissioner of Burmah as to the probable nature of the trade, and Memorials from the Associated Chamber of Commerce, as well as from the Chambers of Commerce of many of the large towns of the North of England. These documents will, I think,

1327
give the hon. Gentleman the information I he seeks.

NAVY—DOCKYARD WORKMEN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PULESTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to the following statement in the public prints, viz.:—
  "In consequence of the scarcity of skilled mechanics which exists in the shipbuilding department at several of the Royal dockyards, some of the officials connected with those establishments have been sent to certain of the great shipbuilding yards on the Thames for the purpose of procuring hands for the Government dockyards. Up to the present time, however, little or no success has attended the efforts to induce mechanics to leave the private yards and transfer their services to the Admiralty. The principal reasons assigned by the workmen for declining to enter the public yards are the low scale of wages and the system of classification at those estabhshments;"
  and whether, if the statement be correct, it is proposed to take any action with a view of overcoming the obstacles complained of, and of adding to the efficiency of the Government dockyards?
  MR. HUNT: Sir, the statement referred to by the hon. Membr is only to a certain extent accurate. In the case of some classes of mechanics men were obtained at the Port of London to the full extent required. In the case of other classes, men were not obtained there, but have since been engaged at other ports in sufficient numbers. I understand that the question of continuity of employment was that upon which the men applied to principally required to be assured.

  VISIT OF H.R.H. THE PRINCE OF WALES TO INDIA.—QUESTION.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table, previous to the Vote being taken for the Prince of Wales's visit to India, the Correspondence on that subject which has taken place between the Viceroy and the Home Authorities?
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, the only Correspondence on the subject is a strictly confidential Correspondence between the Viceroy and the Secretary of State; and for many reasons which will, no doubt, occur to the hon. Baronet, as well as to the House generally, it would not, I think, be for the public convenience or advantage that this Correspondence should be produced.

PUBLIC BUSINESS—THE METROPOLIS GAS COMPANIES BILL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JAMES HOGGasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can enable the Order of the Day for the Committee on the Metropolis Gas Companies Bill to come on this evening at such an hour as will enable the House to entertain the question?
  MR. DISRAELI: I fear, Sir, it is quite out of my power to arrange that this Bill should be discussed to-night, but I am happy to tell my hon. and gallant Friend that next Session, so far as it lies in our power to do so, we will place him and his Friends in the same position as they now occupy. [Laughter.] I see nothing amusing in this announcement. It is one extremely beneficial to my hon. and gallant Friend, because it will not be necessary for him to refer the Bill again to a Select Committee, and he will also enjoy other advantages. That is the intention of the Government. They cannot assist my hon. and gallant Friend in advancing his measure at present. But next Session, so far as the Government are concerned, he and his Friends will be put in the position they now occupy, and therefore there will be a prospect of their carrying out the measure.
  SIR JAMES HOGGthanked the right hon. Gentleman for the favourable Answer he had given.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT, 1870—SCHOOL BOARDS.—QUESTION.
  LORD FRANCIS HERVEYasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether, considering that doubts have been raised as to the legality of causing a School Board to be formed in any district where there is a sufficiency of school accommodation, he will give an assurance that no School Board shall henceforth be formed in any such district until the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown has been taken upon the subject?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, hon. Members who were in the last Parliament will remember, and it may be seen by reference to Hansard's Delates, on June 30, 1870, that Clause 12 of the Education Act of 1870, to which my noble Friend's Question refers, was introduced as a fresh clause in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brad-

  1329
  ford (Mr. W. E. Forster), as he stated at the time in the House, for the express purpose of enabling localities which had sufficient school accommodation, and therefore could not be compelled to elect school boards, to have school boards if they desired, for the purpose of compelling the attendance of children at school and of paying the fees in existing schools for the children of parents whom they considered unable to pay them. The clause was fully discussed on its merits at the time by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and it was finally passed with only a division against a proposal that 20 ratepayers, instead of a majority of ratepayers, might claim a school board, even where there was no school deficiency, for compulsion, &c., only. Ever since the passing of the Act, and in a large number of cases, the Education Department, under this clause, and acting under their usual legal advice, have allowed the election of school boards, at the request of a locality, where there was no school deficiency—Manchester, Macclesfield. Stockport, and other large towns being among the number. Until my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) recently raised the question no doubt has, as far as I know, been raised in Parliament, in the country, or by a single ratepayer as to the legal sufficiency of Clause 12 to carry out the intention of Parliament to enable localities to have school boards, if they desired, simply for compulsion and payment of fees. The Lord President stated last week to a deputation at which my noble Friend was present, that the only way properly to test the correctness of their views as to Clause 12 was for a ratepayer to try the matter in a Court of Law. I need not say that we have given careful consideration to the views of my noble Friend and the other hon. Members who share them; but, as we cannot see any reason to believe that the Government and the country have been under a misapprehension on the subject for the last five years, and as the intention of Parliament is beyond dispute, we do not consider that we should be justified in unsettling the country on this important point by referring the matter to the Law Officers of the Crown, whose opinion, it must be remembered, would not be final. It is obvious that we must act in a case of this kind on our independent judgment
  1330
  of what is right, sorry though we are if that judgment prevents us, as in this matter, from complying with the wishes of some of our Friends.

INDIA—THE GUIKWAR OF BARODA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALEXANDER M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he is now in a position to inform the House whether the Secretary of State has sent instructions to Calcutta that the legal advisers of the Guikwar should be allowed access to him; and, if so, whether he will explain the nature of the regulations to be observed at such interviews?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, political circumstances render it necessary to keep a certain restraint over Mulhar Rao, but the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Government of India, has decided to allow the legal advisers of Mulhar Rao access to him under certain conditions. They must state to the Government of India the business upon which they wish to see Mulhar Rao. Dr. Seward, who is in attendance upon Mulhar Rao, will then inform him that his legal advisers wish to see him, and if he expresses a wish for an interview, it will be allowed in the presence of a Government officer.

ARMY—CASE OF THOMAS DUFFY—CURRAGH CAMP.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MELDONasked the Surveyor General, What was the date of the Agreement containing the terms and conditions under which Thomas Duffy became Brigade Sutler at the Curragh Camp, and between what parties was such contract made; whether there was any other Agreement to which Duffy was a party containing any terms or conditions having reference to such an appointment; and whether there is any objection to lay a Copy or Copies of such Agreement or Agreements upon the Table of the House?
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Sir, the Agreement containing the terms and conditions under which Thomas Duffy became brigade sutler at the Curragh Camp was entered into in 1855 between Thomas Duffy on the one part and the Quartermaster-General and the War Department on the other. It has reference to the Canteen at Curragh Camp,

  1331
  and there is a Clause that the buildings should be removed at 14 days' notice, and in the event of the notice not being complied with they were liable to be removed by the War Department and become their property. It is not the ordinary custom to lay upon the Table Correspondence relating to a matter of this kind, and I do not propose to depart from the ordinary practice.

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I wish, Sir, to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite whether he will tell the House what Business will be proceeded with to-morrow at the Morning Sitting?
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, it is impossible for me to answer the Question of the noble Lord until I see what progress we make in Committee on the Labour Bills.

  EMPLOYERS AND WORKMEN BILL.
  (Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. Attorney General, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)

  [BILL 203.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Power of county court as to ordering of payment of money, set-off, and rescission of contract, and taking security).
  MR. HOPWOODmoved, in page 1, line 15, after "workman," to insert "or a master and apprentice." He moved the Amendment for the purpose of raising the question as to whether the Committee would continue the old law as between master and apprentice with respect to imprisonment for breach of contract when it had abolished the old law between employer and employed. He did not see why a punishment should be awarded to younger men which was not to be meted to adults. He wished to see "workman" and "apprentice" placed on the same footing in relation to the employers, the non-performance of a contract being treated in either case as a civil offence only.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSwas glad to have this question discussed at this early stage inasmuch as when it was disposed of it would decide several Amendments which had been placed on the Paper. He hoped the Committee would not assent to the Amendment.
  1332
  If the apprentice were placed on the same footing as a full-grown workman in regard to the making of a contract the master would be unable to bring the slightest pressure to bear upon him, if the need should arise. The object of the Bill, so far as it affected the apprentice, was to ensure correctional discipline, which would be for his good when he grew up. An apprentice was not to be allowed to leave his master in case fault was found with him. For the first time in history the employer and workman met, under this Bill, on absolutely equal terms; but the relations between the master and apprentice were totally different; the master must not only instruct the apprentice in his trade, but being his teacher must have leave to correct him, and when he committed a fault to scold him, but this he could not do if the Amendment were adopted.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. TENNANTproposed, in page 2, sub-section 3, line 11, after "unperformed," to insert "with the consent of the plaintiff," the object being to introduce into the law mutuality of contract.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. MUNDELLAmoved, in page 2, sub-section 3, line 14, to leave out from "The security" to end of the Clause, and insert—
  "The security shall be an undertaking by the defendant and one or more sureties that he will perform the contract, subject on non-performance to the payment of a sum to be specified in the undertaking."
  As the Bill stood the workman might become surety for himself that he would perform his contract, and if he failed to appear at his work he was Hable to one month's imprisonment. This was quite contrary to the spirit of the Bill as shadowed forth by the speech of the Home Secretary on its introduction, when the right hon. Gentleman said he desired that a workman should not be sent to prison for breach of a civil contract. In Ireland and Scotland there was no such thing as imprisonment for debt awarded for breach of civil contract, but by this Bill they were constituting imprisonment for that breach both in Ireland and Scotland.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 14, to leave out from the word "defendant," to the end of the Clause, in order to insert the words "and one or more sureties that he will perform the contract, subject on

  1333
  non-performance to the payment of a sum to be specified in the undertaking."—(Mr. Mundella.)
  MR ASSHETON CROSSsaid, this matter had been under consideration for some time, and he thought the clause would work better for master and man if it were left as it now stood. It should be remembered that none of this machinery would come into operation until the Court was in a position to award damages. If, instead of an order for damages being made against him, the man said he was willing to come under an obligation for the specific performance of the contract, and was willing to give security to that effect, then the Court might order specific performance. If he failed to fulfil the contract, and if either he or his surety did not pay the sum mentioned in the order, then he might be sent to prison for one month.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwas sorry to hear the conclusion to which the right hon. Gentleman had come. He was of opinion that the clause as it stood would create a feeling in the minds of the working classes that great injustice had been done to them as a class; and it would practically be a restoration of imprisonment for breach of contract. If a division were persisted in he should vote for the Amendment.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, this matter had been discussed before Commission and Committee, and the working men had not the smallest objection to his view of it; but if the Amendment of the noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu) were accepted there could not be the shadow of a grievance.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, everybody understood the Amendment on the Paper would be introduced; but he must assure the right hon. Gentleman that working men were really anxious that these two sections should be removed, and that the remedy should be an ordinary County Court remedy; and, with the addition of a surety provided by the working man, he could not see why the Home Secretary should object. He should press his Amendment to a division.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, the power of imprisonment given by the clause was no guarantee to the surety who might have become responsible for the payment of the fine imposed by the County Court Judges, because the plaintiff might at once proceed against the surety, so that it would be a barren gratification to place the debtor in prison; but if the debtor
  1334
  were imprisoned we should be returning to that imprisonment for debt which we had abolished, with this distinction—that imprisonment would extinguish the debt; and so the working man would be placed in a position different from that of any other debtor, who could be imprisoned only if he had the means to pay and did not do so.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had entirely misconceived the object of the clause. It did not propose to imprison a man for debt, but having been fined for a breach of contract, and allowed to return to his work, if he did so a second time then he was liable to imprisonment.
  MR. HOPWOODunderstood the clause to mean this:—A man was brought before a magistrate or a County Court Judge for violating his contract with his employer, and was told that he might, if he chose, return to his work, subject, however, to a penalty of £5. Then, if he committed the breach of contract a second time, he was to be sent to prison.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, imprisonment would be just if a man broke his contract a second time, and, though having the means, refused to pay the damages; but if a man went to prison that would be a bar to all execution against the surety, so that a master would be most unwilling to press for imprisonment.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONgave the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department the greatest possible credit for the ability and zeal he had manifested in connection with the Bill. But he submitted to him that while anxious to do the working man justice, he was placing him by this clause in an invidious position, by declaring that he alone in the community should be liable to imprisonment for a breach of contract.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that no one had contended for the interests of the working men more steadfastly than Mr. Crompton; but in reply to a question from Sir Montagu Smith, who asked—"whether, failing specific performance, he would object to imprisonment as an alternative?" Mr. Crompton replied that he would not. Now, he (Mr. Cross) did not go so far as this. He wished to state that no man could have an order for specific performance made against him, except by his own consent.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not object to the opinions of Mr. Crompton, but surely Members of the House of Commons might be permitted to discuss this clause, and to point out how it failed to carry out the expressed intention of the Home Secretary. Though the Bill abolished imprisonment for original breach of contract, they still, after a certain number of processes, came to imprisonment for non-performance of contract.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALcontended that there was a misapprehension as to the effect of the provision under discussion. He would remind the Committee that imprisonment consequent upon a breach of a defendants undertaking to perform his contract was in no respect consequent upon non-payment of damages; the order for performance of the contract was an alternative for the order for payment of damages and the power to make such an order was introduced entirely in the defendants interest; for, in the first place, the power could not be exercised unless the defendant had put himself in the wrong by a breach of his original contract, so that an order for damages could be made against him; in the next place, such an order could not be made unless the defendant consented to it; and, thirdly, he only became liable to imprisonment upon his committing a breach of his undertaking, in other words, upon his again committing a breach of his contract. If, having once broken his contract and incurred the liability of having an order made against him for payment of damages, he for his own purposes, and to avoid such an order and its consequences, availed himself of the opportunity of undertaking to perform the contract, it surely did not appear a very severe penalty to impose a limited period of imprisonment upon him in the event of his not abiding by it.
  MR. MUNDELLAthought the right hon. Gentleman made a great mistake in quoting the testimony of Mr. Crompton, because his Amendment was submitted to him, and he gave it his warm approval. He contended that the clause did not place the masters and workmen on an equal footing.
  MR. LOWEwas of opinion that one of the principles of the Bill, as stated by the Home Secretary, was that the failure of a workman to perform his contract should not be considered an offence; but
  1336
  according to this clause that failure was to be treated as an offence, and the right hon. Gentleman was condemned on the very ground upon which he professed to act. He hoped the Committee would not introduce a barbarous principle of that kind of slavery which compelled a man to make himself liable for contempt of Court if he failed to do what was required of him, and which he might not be able to do. This was a very melancholy beginning for a Bill which he himself had believed to be founded on principles of fairness and justice.
  MR. FORSYTHconsidered that the workman would have the option of performing the work or of going to prison.
  MR. GOLDSMIDthought that a reasonable alternative would be the doing of the work, or the payment of a fine for not doing it. A man ought not to be sent to prison for non-performance of a contract.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, a man was not to be sent to prison because he did not perform his contract, but for not completing the undertaking into which he had entered with the Court. The Bill did not revive imprisonment for debt; but it allowed the workman to enter into a contract and to give an undertaking to the Court, and if he did not carry out that undertaking he would be liable to be dealt with in the same manner as other parties committing contempt of Court.
  SIR HENRY JAMESobserved, that a defendant under the Bill would be the only defendant who in any Court could be imprisoned for non-payment of a sum of money which he had not the means of paying.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, if a man promised in a Court of Civil Jurisdiction to do a particular thing, and neglected to do it, he was liable to be sent to prison; not because he was a debtor, but because he was guilty of contempt of Court. It did not appear to him that the payment of a sum of money had anything to do with this matter.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERobserved, that if a man undertook to go back to his work and did not do so that might be a wrong act, but it was not settled that it should be considered a crime. He repeated his opinion that the proposal would put back a workman into the position he now occupied, the only difference being that he would henceforth got a legal warning.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYpointed out that the clause was applicable to employers as well as to workmen. Moreover, it would not come into operation at all except at the request of the defendant. And even if the defendant, after all, neglected to perform his contract, he would not, as a matter of course, be sent to prison, but would only be liable to imprisonment, not for a month, or any other special term, but until he paid the penalty.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSremarked that the clause had been introduced solely in the interest of the workman, and in order to induce the master sometimes to forego his claim for damages.
  Question put,
  "That the words 'to perform his contract,' in line 14, to the word 'undertaking,' in line 16, stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 182; Noes 162: Majority 20.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUmoved, in page 2, line 21, to leave out "fail" and to insert "refuse or neglect." If a man refused or neglected to perform his contract he should be sent to prison, and that imprisonment would serve as a bar to the debt.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, that notwithstanding the division which had just taken place, he should move that the maximum term of imprisonment should be one week instead of one month, so as to mitigate the severity of the clause.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that this clause was so entirely in favour of the working men that he was sorry a false colouring should have been given to it. He was, however, prepared to meet his hon. and learned Friend to the extent of substituting 14 days for a month.
  MAJOR O'GORMANsaid, there were two parties to a contract, and here only one was subject to imprisonment for breach of contract; there was no imprisonment for the employer.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the clause was so drawn that both parties were subjected to precisely the same punishment.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he had voted against the Government in the last division, and though 14 days would certainly be better than one month, he thought it would be more satisfactory if
  1338
  the Home Secretary would withdraw the power of imprisonment altogether.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERdid not give the Home Secretary credit for having drawn this clause entirely in the interest of the workmen, and he hoped that after the division which had been taken on the Motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) his right hon. Friend would re-consider the clause with the view of seeing whether it could not be withdrawn altogether.
  MR. NEWDEGATEhoped the Home Secretary would do nothing of the sort but adhere to the clause. It was quite right to mitigate the penalty, but why should contracts between workmen and employer be put upon a different footing from contracts between other people?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that under the law as it now stood, if a man broke his contract and damages were assessed, if he did not pay the money he might be sent to prison for six weeks. But under the present Bill, if a man said he would rather go back to his work he could do so.
  MR. GREGORYagreed with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) that if imprisonment in these cases was abolished it would be an absolute exception to the law, and put masters and workmen upon a different footing from any other persons. Nothing was more common than for the Court of Chancery to be asked to require specific performance of a contract. Supposing a man contracted to construct a railway or to build a house according to a contract and specification, and failed to do so, the Court of Chancery could order specific performance of contract, and if the order was diregarded, the Court could send him to prison; but his workmen might break their contract with him, and if this clause were omitted they would not be liable to be sent to prison, the law thus making a difference in favour of the workmen to the prejudice of the master.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTremarked that the question was whether they were now for the first time proposing to put the whole of the working class into Chancery. Specific performance had never been applied to contracts of this character, and the Home Secretary, in introducing the Bill, expressly disclaimed any intention of doing it. He hoped that, although the Home Secretary had agreed to substitute 14 days

  1339
  in lieu of a month, it would not be understood that the Committee were precluded in subsequent stages of the Bill from contesting the principle of imprisonment altogether.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUmoved, in page 2, line 24, to add—
  "Which full term of imprisonment, anything in 'The Summary Jurisdiction Act,' and The Dehtors Act, 1869,' to the contrary notwithstanding, shall be in satisfaction of the order, and a bar to and execution or distraint on goods and chattels."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Jurisdiction of Justices in disputes between employers and workmen).
  MR. HOPWOODmoved, in sub-section 2, page 2, line 37, to leave out "from incurred," to end of sub-section and insert—
  "Costs which the court is hereby empowered to grant or refuse, but not exceeding the sum allowed to the county court scale, and."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSintimated that it was his intention to bring up a Schedule for regulating those costs.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Powers of Justices in respect of apprentices).
  MR. BURTproposed an Amendment, the object of which was to place masters and apprentices on the same footing as regarded the liability to imprisonment for wilful breach of indentures.
  MR. ASSEHETON CROSSsaid, his sole object in framing the clause as it stood was for the purpose of keeping up discipline in the case of the apprentices. The boy was under discipline but the master was not. As the law at present stood the master could be imprisoned by the justices if he refused to fulfil a specific contract.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONmoved, as an Amendment, that the term of imprisonment to which a defaulting apprentice became liable should be altered from a month to a week.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was willing that the term should be changed to 14 days.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  MR. MUNDELLAproposed, after Clause 4, to insert the following new clause:—
  "A county court or a court of summary jurisdiction, acting under this Act, shall have jurisdiction to enforce payment of fines or forfeitures payable under any agreement between an employer and a workman; and any such fines or forfeitures shall not be stopped or deducted by any employer out of wages accrued due before the default in respect of which the fine or forfeiture is payable."
  The hon. Member said, that in textile manufactories a very large percentage of those employed were women and children. These latter were often subjected to the operation of certain printed rules of a harsh and arbitrary character, the effect of which was to forfeit whatever wages might be due to them should they be absent from illness or in any other way transgress the regulations. He could, if necessary, mention 50 cases of this kind. In one case a woman who had lost her husband in the night, being unable in consequence to go to work before 7 instead of 6 o'clock in the morning, she forfeited 10 days' earnings which were due to her, and on the case coming before the magistrates they said the case was a very hard one but they had no power in the matter. This was a condition of affairs which required alteration, and he hoped his Amendment would be accepted.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSpromised to consider the matter before the Report was brought up.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that as he believed the Home Secretary was desirous of doing what was right in this case, he should rely entirely on his sense of justice to see that a clause, which would meet the object in view, was inserted in the Bill on the Report. He should, therefore, withdraw the clause he had proposed.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSproposed to add to the Bill a new clause to enable Justices to mitigate the penalty imposed by any Act relating to employers and workmen by reducing it to one-third of the sum named.
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.

  CONSPIRACY AND PROTECTION OF PROPERTY BILL.
  (Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. Attorney General, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)

  [BILL 204.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. LOWE, who had given Notice to move—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to amend the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1871,"
  said, he was informed that it would not he in Order to move that Instruction, because the Committee had already power to amend the Act in question. He should therefore only now state that he proposed in Clause 4 the omission of the words—"where a workman is employed," &c., and the substitution of—" where a person is legally bound, and is able to perform any duty," &c.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive, agreed to, with verbal Amendments.
  Clause 4 (Breach of contract by workmen employed in supply of Gas or Water).
  MR. LOWEsaid, the Amendment which he was about to move to the clause was proposed in no adverse sense to the spirit of the Bill. He wished, in fact, to adopt all the Home Secretary proposed, only to extend the principle further. He thought it a very sound and good principle of legislation that those who made laws should be subject to them wherever that was possible, because people would legislate more carefully and equitably if they considered that they were making laws for themselves as well as for others, and because, also, by making their laws wide and general they were more likely to make good and sound laws than if they limited themselves to small sections of the community where petty prejudices and animosities might easily mislead. Therefore, he held that nobody would dispute that it was a sound principle that when they were making a penal law, as in the present case, they should make that law as wide as possible, and avoid picking out a particular class and subjecting them to penalties from which the rest of the community were free. He thought that was more especially the
  1342
  case when it fell upon the humbler classes of the community. Everybody must feel that it was extremely desirable that there should be one law for both the rich and the poor, and that there should be no ground given for the accusation or the suspicion that they were passing laws for their poorer fellow-countrymen to which they themselves would not be willing to submit. All, then, which he asked the Home Secretary to do was to apply this general principle in two cases. One was the section under consideration, which punished workmen for the abandonment or breach of a contract, whereby the supply of gas or water by a municipality might be interfered with; and the other was where a workman by breach of his contract of service would expose valuable property, real or personal, to destruction. He was perfectly willing to adopt those principles, but there was a third that ought to be added, and that was where human life was placed in danger. But what he wanted was that it should not be limited to breach of contract or to working people, but that wherever it was a man's duty, by contract or otherwise, to do a particular thing, and by abandoning that duty without reasonable excuse, he did any of the three things specified, he should be punished. He could imagine a contractor entering into a contract to do certain repairs, and wilfully and negligently forbearing from putting his men on to work upon which he was engaged, thus causing some serious catastrophe. He did not know why, because he was a contractor, he was to be exempted from the punishment to which in such a case a workman would render himself liable. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would see the justice of the case as clearly as it appeared to him, and that he would not be blind or deaf to the consideration that it was very important to teach the working men to consider that they were not a class apart from the rest of the country—that what we did for or against them we were willing to do for or against ourselves if we fell into a similar fault. He wished to establish that principle, and to give it a larger application in the case of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, giving the working classes thoroughly to understand that they should be treated with the most perfect equality and justice. He moved to omit the

  1343
  clause—" where a workmen is employed by a municipal authority or other public body," &c., and to insert—
  "Where a person is legally bound and is able to perform any duty the immediate and probable consequences of the neglect of which would be to deprive the community of a supply of gas or water, or shall expose property of the value of £100, or endanger human life, such person, if he abandons that duty without reasonable excuse, shall on conviction," &c.
  THE CHAIRMANobserved that the Committee could only discuss the new clause after the clause in its present shape had been disposed of. It was perfectly competent to the Committee to strike out the 4th clause and substitute that of the right hon. Gentleman; but the present clause must first be disposed of.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 5, to leave out "workman," and insert "person."—(Mr. Lowe.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he quite admitted the general principle the right hon. Gentleman had laid down, that it was always wise, if you could, to have a general, instead of a particular, law; but persons who were brought under a particular law must not fancy they were singled out because of something objectionable in them or their calling. The simple explanation was, that the relation to the public they had undertaken required special legislation, which did not, as a rule, affect others who were not so employed, and there were numerous instances of persons occupying such relations who had never felt or suggested that special legislation was a grievance. There were many laws, criminal as well as civil, relating to bankers, brokers, merchants, factors, carriers, bailees, trustees, the Army, the Navy, railway servants, and others whose special relations required to be specially dealt with, and by dealing specially with them, you could often deal much more fairly by the general public. It often happened that persons belonging to these special classes, if they committed certain offences, required to be punished either with more or less severity on account of the position they occupied, which might impose upon them greater responsibilities; and if we were to generalize the law and say that all persons should be subjected to equal punishment for like offences we might inflict hardships much
  1344
  more grievous than any we removed. An illustration of this was furnished by the offence of embezzlement committed by a servant in whom special trust was reposed. The moving of this Amendment had a tendency to complicate the discussion of this particular question, and he was obliged to refer to the next section in order fully to discuss it. By that clause, which provided for a breach of contract involving injury to property, there was a distinct relation between the employer and the employed. The workman was specially trusted with a certain special employment, and he knew that if he broke it special danger would be the consequence, and in the clause then under consideration the special danger would be to the public at large. The right hon. Gentleman asked why the clause was not made applicable to all contracts. The tendency of modern legislation had been to withdraw these contracts as much as possible from the grasp of the criminal law; but the right hon. Gentleman proposed by this Amendment to take a most retrograde step in legislation, and make everyone who entered into a contract and wilfully broke it amenable to the criminal law, and not confine it to contracts of service, and the result would be that attempts would be made, with the aid of the criminal law—if so amended—to enforce contracts that ought only to be so by the civil law. At present they frequently saw persons indicted who ought not to be for embezzlement, which were only attempts to enforce the criminal law. To adopt that principle in all contracts would be a most retrograde step. He entirely objected to that principle. There were numberless precedents for this kind of legislation. Take, for instance, the Army, and the Navy, and the Police, where there was special legislation by the Mutiny Act to prevent danger to the state. Persons employed on railways were also governed by special acts, and suffered punishment if they did anything that practically tended to public danger. This clause was drawn precisely on that analogy. No one particular class was singled out, and upon that ground, whilst appreciating the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's wish, it would be most dangerous to extend the criminal law as he proposed, and therefore he must oppose the Amendment.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the only question before the Committee was whether the clause should be applied to everybody or only to workmen. It was said that it was desirable in the public interest that persons who had duties to perform in connection with gas and water works, and who wilfully and maliciously broke their contracts, should be liable to certain penalties; but why not say that all persons whose duty it was to supply gas and water should be punished in a similar manner, instead of speaking only of workmen? Suppose the coal merchant or the coal owner broke his contract and did not deliver coal, and the consequence was a town was not supplied with gas, why was the workman who did his work to go to prison and the coalowner not? That was a clear question, one upon which the working classes would form an opinion. They would say—"Gentlemen sitting in the House of Commons, many of them coal owners, have passed a law which touches us and does not touch themselves; a coalowner may break his contract because coal rises in price, without going to prison; and, at the same time, a working man, who breaks his contract, may be sent to prison." If "person" instead of "workman" were inserted in this clause, it might be preserved in its present form, and, by omitting contracts of service, it might be made applicable to every class of the community. Suppose, instead of being a "workman," it was the overseer who was guilty of a breach of duty. [Several hon. MEMBERS: He is treated as a workman.] If that were so, if workmen covered everybody engaged on the work, what objection could there be to substituting "person" for "workman?" Either the word "person" was not objectionable or else the word "workman" excluded somebody whom "person" would include.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, with regard to a wilful and malicious breaking of contract, that the rule was made because the workman was the person who committed the injury stated. The coalowner could not do it, or if he did it he must come within the meaning of the words "wilfully and maliciously break his contract." The offence could be easily proved in the case of the workman, who, entering into conspiracy with his fellow-workmen at a certain time and on a certain day, left a town in darkness; but
  1346
  not so in the ease of a coalowner who failed to supply a certain quantity of coals. By making the law too broad they missed their men. In the endeavour to include everybody they missed all.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman to insert the word "person" instead of "workman," and which was the only Amendment formally under the consideration of the Committee, was not so objectionable as were the suggested further Amendments referred to by him in proposing it. The object of the clause was to remedy a specific evil; a case of probable or possible misconduct in relation to a particular species of employment, that connected with the supply of gas and water, and in respect of which the breach of duty might lead to the most lamentable consequences.
  MR. DODSONobserved that the Amendment reduced itself to this—where any person engaged in work, and under an obligation to contribute his share towards the supply of the town with gas or water, broke that obligation, he incurred a different punishment, according to his station in the manufactory in which he was engaged, whether he was an overseer or a workman. Now it appeared that the principle adopted by the Government was an equal treatment of all persons, whether employers or employed.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the three speeches they had heard from the front Opposition bench advocated the Amendment on different grounds. The case as put by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) was very intelligible, but quite different from that put by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson). There could be no possible objection to substitute the word "person" for "workman" if the clause were not to be extended beyond those who were bound by some contract. He therefore assented to the Amendment, on the understanding that he was not to be led into the snare provided by the right hon. Gentleman in the rest of his Amendment.
  After a few words from Sir HENRY JAMES,
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it was unfortunate that, in consequence of the course taken by the right hon. Gentle-

  1347
  man, the Government were now called I upon to argue this question on a clause which was not upon the Paper. The overseers and others in the employment of the company ought to be just as much bound by their contract as the workmen.
  MR. ROEBUCKreminded the Committee that after all there was no difference between the meaning of the two words. The persons employed must be working men, whether they were called on to supply either gas or water.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwas glad the right hon. Gentleman accepted the Amendment, because he could not see why the workmen should be placed in a different position from contractors or others engaging labour. He hoped that the Home Secretary would so far alter the clause as to make it applicable to all persons who broke a contract for supplying a town with gas or water.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. LOWEsaid, that the words "employed by a municipal authority" had no meaning. Why was it worse to break a contract where a municipal authority or public company were concerned than in other cases where there might be no Act of Parliament? If those who undertook the duty violated it, what did it signify what particular form of municipal government or organization existed? He accordingly moved, in page 2, line 6, to leave out the words "employed by a municipal authority," and insert "on whom is imposed the duty."
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 5, to leave out the words "employed by a municipal authority."—(Mr. Lowe.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSobjected to the Amendment, believing its effect would be to neutralize the purpose of the Bill. The object in view would be secured by the adoption of the Amendment of his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Tennant)—namely, the insertion of the words, "or who under any charter, incorporation, or otherwise, have assumed the obligation" of supplying gas or water. That Amendment he was prepared to accept.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTpointed out that, under this clause, punishment could not be enforced for failure of gas or water supply, in the case of towns like
  1348
  Oxford, where such supply was given neither under a municipal authority or under an Act of Parliament; and he inquired why all persons ought not to be included who caused public inconvenience in matters of this kind.
  MR. DODSONdid not think that the words of the hon. Member (Mr. Tennant) would meet the case of those who undertook to supply gas or water by voluntary agreement.
  MR. TENNANTsaid, it would be met by the words "or otherwise."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London were adopted, one great object they all had in view would be defeated, as workmen employed by gas companies, who conspired together and left their work at a moment's notice would not be reached by the clause.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsuggested a form of Amendment which would make the clause applicable to all persons bound by contract, whether of service or otherwise.
  MR. HERMONhoped that the House surely would adhere to the original wording of the clause, with the addition of "or any contractor."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would not object to amend the clause by making it applicable to persons employed by a municipal authority or public company, or by any company or contractor, upon whom was imposed by Act of Parliament the duty, or had otherwise undertaken the duty, of supplying gas or water.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that what was desired was that the same punishment which it was proposed to apply to employés should be applied to employers.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, that if they struck out the words "contract of service," it would deprive the clause of the appearance of being directed against one class of the community. He would suggest that the clause should be worded to the effect that if a person wilfully and maliciously broke a contract, the non-performance of which would do injury to the inhabitants of a city, borough, or town, he should be liable to punishment.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSthought the adoption of the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton would be an uncalled-for extension of

  1349
  the Criminal Law. His object was not to deal with contracts generally, but with those who had engaged in a contract for a special and particular service of great public importance.
  MR. HARDCASTLEhoped the Committee would adhere to the clause as it stood. He thought the adoption of the Amendment would be an excessive extension of a penal statute.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTdenied that on that side of the House they had any desire to extend the Criminal Law. The working men complained that they had been subject to exceptional legislation; and if they passed this Bill, as it stood, it would still leave that impression on their minds. The Bill would not be worth the paper it was written upon if it left that impression. The meaning of the clause was that men who were under contract of service were to be treated in a different manner, and were to be subjected to severer penalties, than men who were under other contracts. The right hon. Gentleman shrank from extending this legislation to other classes, because the moment they were touched by it, it would be impossible to carry it out, and what he desired was that the country should know that the Home Secretary was proposing to apply this legislation to a particular class. The Government were bringing in this Bill, not because they were particularly fond of it, but because the country had forced it upon them. If this Bill was allowed to pass in its present shape, it would practically re-enact the Master and Servant Act in a new form.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was not going to be led by the speech of the hon. and learned Member into what he thought would be most unfortunate—a political struggle on this matter. The object of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt) and of himself (Mr. Cross), as well as of the Committee, was that this question should be settled, and it was a great mistake to introduce political element into it. The language of the hon. and learned Gentleman was not the language of working men. This matter had been discussed by them and fought from end to end. Pamphlets had been written on it. He denied that the present Bill could in any accurate sense of the word be described as class legislation. It was simply legislation arising out of the relations borne by
  1350
  certain persons, who were not workmen, to the public. The clause had simply been inserted in the Bill in order to avoid the danger to the public which might arise from the action of these persons. Mr. Crompton had written very thoughtfully on this question, and he fully carried out the view that the particular proposal under discussion was not one which could be regarded as class legislation. The sole desire of the Government was to do only that which was necessary for the safety of the public.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not fully met the point that had been raised. In the interest of the public the Government proposed to punish criminally workmen engaged in water or gas works who broke their contract; and what they desired was that the same principle should be applied to other persons connected with these works who, by breach of contract, caused danger or injury to the public.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, a breach of contract in this case was made criminal because it affected two important necessaries of life; but why should the poor workmen be subjected to penalties, and the gas companies, or any other contractors, be exempt? The whole sting of the Bill was that it applied to workmen only. He trusted the Government would accept the Amendment.
  MR. WALTERsaid, he was not sure that the Committee exactly understood the question on which they were about to divide, because it seemed to him that both the hon. and learned Member for Oxford and the hon. Member for Sheffield had overstated their case. He agreed in thinking that both gas and water companies, and their employés, ought to be held responsible for their neglect; but, as he understood the two hon. Gentlemen to whom he had referred, they wished to extend the responsibility to the persons who supplied the companies with coal or other materials necessary to enable them to carry on their business operations. The view entertained by the hon. Members amounted to a wish to apply the principle of the Mutiny Act—which governed the whole Navy, from the Admiral to the humblest seaman, to the contractor who supplied the Fleet with beef. On the whole, he thought the clause should not be strained so as to extend to third

  1351
  persons, but should be confined to the companies whose duty it was to supply the public with gas and water, and to their servants.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONthought the clause, as proposed to be amended, would not deserve the criticism passed upon it by his hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, in that it would not include the owners who supplied gas or water companies with coal. The Opposition were willing to give the Home Secretary credit for wishing to settle the question in a satisfactory manner; but if they thought that his clauses did not carry out his own object, he did not know that they could point out their consequences in any other way than by saying so. The right hon. Gentleman had accused them of desiring to extend the Criminal Law to contracts of various descriptions; but he (the Marquess of Hartington) wished to remind him that it was not the Opposition, but the Government, that proposed to apply it to contracts of this description.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONexplained that the clause, as originally drawn, applied only to workmen; but what his Amendment sought to bring about was, that whoever wilfully refused to perform a contract of any kind and by such refusal entailed such consequences as were pointed out in the clause, and did so knowing what the effect would be, ought to be criminally liable whether he was a workman or not.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 127; Noes 108: Majority 19.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU, in moving the omission from the clause of the words "or public company," said, the clause, as it was framed, stated that if any third party was injured the workman must suffer. The workman, as the Bill now stood, had a remedy against the municipal authority, but he had no remedy whatever against a company. The clause was a creation of the Home Secretary. He (Lord Robert Montagu) submitted if the company had the power they would use it against the workmen.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 5 and 6, to leave out the words "or public Company."—(Lord Robert Montagu.)
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 200; Noes 19: Majority 181.
  On the Motion of Mr. ASSHETON CROSS, Amendment made by inserting the words "or by any company or contractor," after the words "public company," in page 2, line 6.
  MR. LOWEthen moved the omission, in page 2, line 9, after the words "wilfully and maliciously breaks a contract," of the words "of service," his object being to get a distinct decision as to whether there was to be any new penal legislation between the employer and the employed, which he hoped had been done away with by the Master and Servant Act. In other words, the question was whether a man who wilfully committed a breach of contract should be exempted from punishment because he was not in the position of a working man.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, lind 9, to leave out the words "of service."—(Mr. Lowe.)
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 123; Noes 98: Majority 25.
  MR. BURTmoved, to insert in page 2, line 9, after the word "service," the words "and which services are necessary to carry on the operations."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he accepted the spirit of the Amendment, but it had been otherwise provided for.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved, in page 2, line 17, at end, add—
  "Every such municipal authority or public Company as is mentioned in this section shall cause to be posted up, at the gas or waterworks, as the case may be, belonging to such authority or Company, a printed copy of this section in some conspicuous place where the same may be conveniently read by the persons employed, and as often as such copy becomes defaced, obliterated, or destroyed, shall cause it to be renewed with all reasonable despatch.
  "If any municipal authority or public Company make default in complying with the provisions of this section in relation to such notice as aforesaid, they shall incur on summary conviction a penalty not exceeding five pounds for every day during which such default continues, and every person who unlawfully injures, defaces, or covers up any notice so posted up as

  1353
  aforesaid in pursuance of this Act, shall he liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Breach of contract involving injury to property).
  MR. MACDONALDmoved, in page 2, line 18, to leave out "an employer or a workman," and insert "any person."
  MR. NEWDEGATEtrusted that the Home Secretary would retain the words in the Bill.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTwished to know why the clause should not be applicable to everybody. He suspected that if it applied to the commercial classes and their breaches of contract, there would be a middle-class rebellion, which would be a very serious thing. It was obvious that the great stress would be upon the employed and not upon the employers, and they ought, therefore, either not make it criminal at all, or otherwise apply it to all classes.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSShad already stated that the object of the clause was to meet cases in which property entrusted to the care of a workman would be injured by that workman suddenly leaving such property to its fate. But he had expressly excluded losses to the master caused by his being unable to fulfil his contract owing to the workmen repudiating theirs. This was an enormous alteration of the existing law. He had, however, no objection to the Amendment changing the words "employer or workmen," to "any person."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. FORSYTHmoved, in page 2, line 21, after "will be," to insert "to cause serious pecuniary loss or." An employer might be under contract to complete certain work by a given time, and the failure to complete it through the wilful or malicious default of his workmen might cause him immense pecuniary injury, yet the clause at present ignored such an offence.
  MR ASSHETON CROSSsaid, these words would re-introduce the whole mischief complained of in the Master and Servant Act, and would put upon the workmen in an aggravated form the pressure of which they now complained.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. HOPWOODmoved, in page 2, line 23, after "injury," to insert "and
  1354
  such valuable property shall be destroyed or seriously injured."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could not accept the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALmoved the insertion of words which made it an offence under the clause to "endanger human life or cause serious bodily injury."
  Amendment agreed to.
  On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTentered his protest against the clause in the form which it had now assumed. It was true that the word "person" had been substituted for "employer" or "workman;" but, to his dismay, the hon. Member for Stafford had failed to move his Amendment for the omission of the words "contract of service," and, consequently, the clause, as it now stood, was worse than ever, being directed solely against the workman. If he thought there was a fair chance of succeeding, he would divide against the clause; but he ventured to predict that it would leave as great a sore open as that which they had endeavoured to close.
  MR. MUNDELLAalso protested against the change made in the clause, which would have the effect of punishing only the workmen.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, all appearance of equality of justice had disappeared from the clause, and he hoped that the hon. and learned Member for Oxford would divide against it.
  MR. MACDONALDhad not before seen what would be the effect of the alteration; but he would endeavour, on the Report, to strike out the words "contract of service."
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 174; Noes 130: Majority 44.
  Clause 6 (Power for offender under this Act, or under 34 & 35 Vict. c. 32, to be tried on indictment and not by court of summary jurisdiction).
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, that as there had been various opinions and conflicting authoritative decisions as to the meaning of the word "coerce," in the interpretation of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, he begged to move, in page

  1355
  2, line 36, at the end of the clause, that the following words be added:—
  "Provided, That the word 'coerce' in the said Act shall he construed to mean 'compel or force otherwise than by persuasion, argument, or other peaceful means,"
  In most instances the higher tribunals had interpreted the word in the sense of his Amendment. That too was the interpretation put upon it by the right hon. and learned Member the Recorder of London and by the Earl of Derby and Lord Cairns in the House of Lords, yet in the recent case of the cabinet makers, and occasionally before justices, it was not followed.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 36, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided, That the word 'coerce' in the said Act shall be construed to mean 'compel or force otherwise than by persuasion, argument, or other peaceful means.'"—(Mr. Hopwood.)
  SIR HENRY JAMESrose to Order. He wished to know if it were competent for the hon. and learned Member to introduce a definition in any clause other than the interpretation clause?
  THE CHAIRMANobserved that it was somewhat inconvenient to have such an Amendment brought forward now, and, without ruling that the hon. Member was out of Order, suggested that it would more properly be moved on the interpretation clauses.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, he should be sorry to take matter out of the hands of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton, if that hon. and learned Gentleman thought all Amendments should proceed from the first Opposition bench. He regretted if he were on that point guilty of any infringement of Party subordination; but still, from the attention which he had given the subject, he had a right to express an opinion upon it, and unless ruled out of Order he should persist with his Motion.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSurged that the Amendment could not properly be moved on the clause under discussion, and he would not therefore debate it, though fully accepting its importance.
  MR. MUNDELLAsuggested that the hon. Member might withdraw his Amendment if the Home Secretary would say that he would afterwards give a definition of the term "coerce" in the Bill.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 119; Noes 214: Majority 95.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Penalty on persons drunk and disorderly in factory).
  MR. BUTTmoved to reject the words in the 2nd section which enforced imprisonment with hard labour on nonpayment of a fine in the case of a workman drunk and disorderly within a factory.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSundertook to strike out the words on the Report.
  MR. MELDONobjected to the clause altogether. Why was this power of apprehending by a constable without a warrant to be exercised in a factory? The clause ought never to have been introduced into the Bill. He would propose its omission.
  MR. MUNDELLAdoubted if any manufacturers had ever had occasion to complain of the hands coming to the factory drunk and being disorderly there. It was cruelty to suspect men of being guilty of such acts.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, speaking as a factory employer, hoped the clause would be omitted.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the clause had been much pressed upon him, but if factory owners themselves thought it unnecessary he would omit it.
  Amendment (Mr. Butt), by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment (Mr. Meldon), agreed to.
  Clause struck out.
  Clause 9 (Proceeding before court of summary jurisdiction).
  MR. HOPWOODmoved, in page 3, line 20, to add—
  "Provided, that upon the hearing and determining of any indictment, information, or complaint under section four, five, and seven of this Act, the respective parties to the contract of service, their husbands or wives, shall be deemed and considered as competent witnesses."
  SIR HENRY JAMESheld that in matters of contract, the evidence of the parties was essential.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would rather discuss this matter in its bearing upon the general law, as exceptions always created confusion. He would not object, however, to the Amendment appearing upon the Report, in order that it might be considered meanwhile.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 10 (General definitions).
  MR. MACDONALDmoved the omission, in page 3, line 29, of the words "expressed or implied, verbal, or," his object being to confine the operation of the clause to contracts in writing.
  MR. SAMUDAsaid, his long experience convinced him that the adoption of the Amendment would be a serious injury to workmen, who were treated throughout the Bill in the most liberal manner.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. JACKSONthen moved the insertion of the words after "and" in line 30, "the expression 'contract of service' includes contracts of hiring and of employment," and stated that his object was to remove all doubt as to the 4th and 5th clauses being applicable to employers as well as workmen.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that he would, before the Report, consider the best way of making the clauses applicable to masters, as well as workmen.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PELL, who had an Amendment the object of which was to include piecework in the operation of the Bill, especially as regards husbandry, expressed a hope that that also would be considered before the bringing up of the Report.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUmoved, in page 3, line 38, to leave out from "any justice" to end, and insert—

  "(1.) As respects the city of London, the Lord Mayor or any alderman of the said city sitting at the Mansion House or Guildhall justice rooms; and

  "(2.) As respects any police court division in the Metropolitan police district, any Metropolitan police magistrate sitting at the police court for that division; and

  "(3.) As respects any city, town, liberty, borough, place, or district, for which a stipendiary magistrate is for the time being acting, such stipendiary magistrate sitting at a police court or other place appointed in that behalf; and

  "(4.) Elsewhere any justice or justices of the peace to whom jurisdiction is given by the Summary Jurisdiction Act: Provided, That, as respects any case within the cognisance of such justice or justices as last aforesaid, a complaint under this Act shall be heard and determined, and an order for imprisonment made by two or more justices of the peace in petty sessions sitting at some place appointed for holding petty sessions:

  "And Provided, That the consent of Her Majesty's Attorney General or Solicitor General
  1358
  shall be previously obtained before any cause shall be heard or proceedings taken under this Act."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSassented to the Amendment as far as regarded the words "petty sessions."
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 11 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Recovery of penalties, &c. in Scotland).
  THE LORD ADVOCATEmoved, in page 5, line 23, after "(3)," to leave out to end of line 25, and insert—
  "Every person found liable on conviction to pay any penalty under this Act shall be liable, on failure of payment of the same, to be imprisoned, and in the case of the conviction being of an offence under the provisions of this Act, relating to persons being drunk, riotous, and disorderly in factories, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding the term for which he might under this Act have been sentenced to be so imprisoned in lieu of being sentenced to pay such penalty, or until such penalty shall be sooner paid."
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTopposed the Amendment on the ground that it was contrary to what had already been decided with respect to England, and that no distinction ought to be made between the two countries.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEwithdrew the Amendment, observing that the matter might be considered on the Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought it might save the time of the Committee if he made a statement to them relating to the new clauses of the Bill. The right hon. Member for the University of London had placed on the Paper a clause to generalize the Criminal Law Amendment Act. It was objected to the earlier clauses of the Bill that the terms used were not general, and it was said that if they were made general a great deal of what was felt to be a hardship would cease to be so regarded. He was extremely anxious that there should not be even an apparent difference of opinion in that House either on one side or the other on that point. He believed that what everybody desired was exactly what he stated when he introduced the Bill; he believed that they did not desire, on the one hand, to see the workman punished unjustly, or on the other to see him having power to

  1359
  tyrannize over his fellow-workman; and the more he had inquired into the matter the more convinced was he that a great deal of mischief had arisen from persons being singled out in that particular law. He had seen not only men, but also a great number of masters on that subject, and he felt bound to say that the more he had seen of the masters the more he had been struck with the generous way in which they had met the men on matters of that kind, in order that labour and capital might act together, so as to enable this country to compete with other countries. The right hon. Member for the University of London, who had proposed an Amendment dealing with part of the Act, stated some time ago that he thought the using violence to any person or property, or the threatening and intimidating any person in such a manner as to justify the offender's being bound over to keep the peace, should be dealt with in an ordinary Court of Law. Upon that matter he was not entirely in accord with the right hon. Gentleman, because he thought it very necessary that in the face of a statute of this kind it should be made clear that whatever was done in order to be a crime must be done with a view to coerce. Whatever then they did with the first section of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, it should be quite clear upon its face that the act done, in order to be criminal in this way, should be to compel a man to do something, or to prevent him from doing something which he had a natural right to do, and having had a great deal of communication with both men and masters, he thought the whole justice of the case might fairly be met by the new clause he was about to propose. If that were satisfactory to the Committee, he hoped it might be agreed to unanimously, in order to show that there was no feeling on the one side or the other except that of promoting union and amity as far as they could in the relations between employer and employed. The real effect would be that they should have generalized this whole Act of Parliament, and taken it out of the power of these men to make the complaint which they had hitherto made that this was special legislation. In conclusion, the right hon. Gentleman proposed the following clause:—
  "Every person who with a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing or to do any act which such other person has a legal
  1360
  right to do or to abstain from doing shall use violence to any person or any property, or shall threaten or intimidate any person in such a manner as to justify a Justice of the Peace to bind over such person to keep the peace."
  Then there would follow the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Loudon (Mr. Lowe)—
  "And any person, who with a view seriously to annoy or intimidate any person, persistently follows such person about, or hides any property owned or used by such person, or deprives him of or hinders him in the use thereof, or watches or besets the place where such person resides or is, or the approach to such place, or with one or more persons follows such person in a disorderly manner in or through any street or road shall, on summary conviction before two justices be imprisoned with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two months."
  MR. LOWEsaid, the Committee must be very sensible of the attention which the right hon. Gentleman had given to this subject and the pains he had taken to conciliate the reasonable susceptibilities of the working classes. It would, however, neither be respectful to the working classes, nor to the right hon. Gentleman himself, to proceed to discuss this new clause without further consideration, although, as far as he could at present grasp its meaning, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had fairly succeeded in solving the problem. In order that the matter might be thoroughly considered, he would move to report Progress.
  MR MUNDELLAhad no doubt the right hen. Gentleman meant to do what was right, but it was obvious that before the Committee could deal with a clause of so much importance it should have the words of it before them. He should wish particularly to know whether it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to repeal the Criminal Law Amendment Act, or any portion of it, and whether his clause was in substitution of it, or any portion of it?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought the best course would be to place the words of the clause on the Paper, and to consider them at 2 o'clock to-morrow morning. ["No, no!"] He should wish, therefore, to withdraw the clause for the present, and to bring it forward to-morrow, and in the meantime to proceed with the remaining portions of the Bill.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERdid not consider it would be fair to the great num-

  1361
  ber of persons out-of-doors, who were intensely interested in this question, that the Committee should come to a decision upon it to-morrow, and he would therefore suggest Thursday.
  MR. MUNDELLAappealed to the Home Secretary not to proceed with the clause before Thursday, as he should wish, for his own part, to obtain a legal opinion upon its construction.
  MR MACDONALDhoped the clause would not be taken before Thursday or Friday, as it was very necessary that the working class should be communicated with on the subject.
  SIR CHARLES FORSTERobserved that Thursday had been already set apart for other Business.
  MR. KINNAIRDhoped the postponement would be long enough to admit of communication with those interested in it in Scotland.
  MR ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he should withdraw the clause, and a few minutes later he would state when the Government proposed to proceed with it.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved a clause repealing, with certain exceptions, the Acts specified in the schedule of the Master and Servants Act, 1867.
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUmoved an Amendment to repeal the Criminal Law Amendment Act, remarking that he should take the sense of the House upon it, in order that the workmen might see who were their friends and who were their foes.
  MR. BUTTsuggested that the noble Lord should not mix up so important a subject as the repeal of the Criminal Law Amendment Act with entirely different matter.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress, to sit again upon Friday, at Two of the clock.

  MILITIA LAWS CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT (re-committed) BILL.
  (Mr. Secretary Hardy, The Judge Advocate, Mr. Stanley.)

  [BILL. 102.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 3 (Appointment of Lieutenants of counties, and certain towns, &c.).
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURcomplained that the present Bill was only a part of the defensive law of the Kingdom, that it was called a consolidating Bill, though changes were made in the laws, and that this course was opposed to the received opinions of those who were qualified to advise that we should include in a consolidating Bill amendments in the law. He also complained that the present Bill repeated clause after clause of the old Acts relating to the deputy lieutenants of counties which were not only useless, but unnecessary. This Bill was only a part of our Militia Laws, and merely related to Militia raised by voluntary enlistment, in which the duties of deputy lieutenants were in no wise concerned, and that as those services were only required in ease of raising the Militia by Ballot, it was quite useless to provide for this rank in the Bill now before the Committee. Besides, the only changes made in the law relating to deputy lieutenants were trifling and related mainly to the qualification entitling persons to be appointed to this almost useless office. It would be far better, and consistent with the opinions of those who advised on the reform of Acts of Parliament, to bring in a separate clause, amending the Acts in existence to the extent desired relating to deputy lieutenants. He would therefore move to leave out from Clause 3, page 2, down to Clause 17, page 7, inclusive, and thus leave the law relating to the deputy lieutenants to be dealt with next Session, when the House was to have the Bill relating to the Militia Ballot.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that if the Militia Laws were to be consolidated it was absolutely necessary that those clauses should appear in the Consolidated Bill, but then the old statutes from which they were taken would disappear.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Number of deputy lieutenants).
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURmoved, in page 3, line 27, after "Deputy Lieutenants," to insert—

  1363
  "Provided always, That the number of Deputy Lieutenants appointed to the several counties, cities, or towns, shall not exceed the number of Lieutenancy Sub-Divisions in the respective counties, cities, or towns, of the United Kingdom."
  His object in moving this clause was in view to restrict the number of deputy lieutenants within some reasonable limit, for at present the number far exceeded the sub-divisions of lieutenancy into which the country was divided. It was only necessary to attach a deputy lieutenant to each of those sub-divisions, whereas there were in many counties, and perhaps in the whole Kingdom, ten times as many deputy lieutenants as there were sub-divisions, moreover, he was also desirous of seeing the Kingdom re-divided for general defensive purposes into divisions suitable for the altered state of the population. There were sub-divisions with 2,000 males and other sub-divisions with between 200,000 and 300,000, all owing to the neglect to adapt the divisions to the present time, instead of retaining the divisions of lieutenancies as they were in the beginning of the century. There was power under the existing Act to adapt the existing Militia sub-divisions of lieutenancy to those of the registration of births and marriages, and these were so wisely arranged that they were admirably adapted to the military organization of the whole country. It was only by bringing this great and efficient civil administration to bear on the Militia system that we would expect to have a great defensive force formed, on principles suited for a free country and a free people, willing and able to defend themselves and to protect their independence.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he could not agree to the proposal.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 7 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 18 (Militia while ballot suspended to be raised under this Act. Their number).
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that he had the same object in view as that which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had—namely, to improve the Militia laws for the defence of the Kingdom, but he entirely differed from him as to the mode of carrying out that object; whilst the right hon. Gentleman abolished old laws,
  1364
  which had been passed at various times, as well as amended these laws, by bringing in a general Bill, under the title of a consolidating Bill. He (Sir George Balfour) was in favour of retaining those laws, because they contained provisions which former experience had proved to be wise and necessary, and which might again be needed. If changes were deemed necessary, they should first be made by an amending Bill alone; besides the old laws were, in his opinion, far more suitable than those of modern times. For instance, the laws passed in 1757, when the Militia was reformed, were excellent laws in many respects and might be revived. Again, the Local Training Act of Wyndham, and the Local Militia Act of Castlereagh, which were still in force, wholly or in part, were well adapted for the formation and training of a great defensive force, within the United Kingdom, and he therefore deprecated the abrogation of laws which contained such excellent provisions, as many of them did, being the results of actual experience, amidst the various changes in the national danger. Seeing, however, that the right hon. Gentleman was resolved to adhere to this Bill, he (Sir George Balfour) had placed many Amendments on the Paper in view to improving this meagre Bill, but as he found it would be useless for him to press the series of Amendments which he had proposed to this and succeeding clauses, he decided on allowing all to be negatived, but he must protest against the course which was being pursued, for in his opinion the right hon. Gentleman ought to send the Bill to a Select Committee, in order not only to ascertain what changes were advisable in the old laws, but to ensure a good consolidating Bill being compiled out of all the laws that had been passed relating to this great defensive Army.
  MR. STANLEYpointed out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Bill was essentially a consolidating, and not to any important extent an amending Bill, and was intended as a step to thorough reform of the Militia Law.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 19 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 25 (Extra musicians may be kept at the expense of the commanding officer).
  MR. HAYTERmoved to omit the clause. He objected to it on the ground that it would place a commanding officer of small means who succeeded an officer of large means in an invidious position with respect to providing as large a number of bandsmen.
  MR. STANLEY, on behalf of the Government, resisted the Motion.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 157; Noes 30: Majority 127.
  Clause 26 agreed to.
  Clause 27 (Pensions preserved).
  COLONEL DYOTTmoved, in page 9, to add at the end—
  "And that no officer receiving a retired allowance for former service in the rank of Adjutant shall forfeit such allowance during the time he may serve, and is entitled to receive pay for serving in any other rank."
  MR. STANLEYsaid, the rule was that in such cases the officers would have to relinquish their retired pay, a rule to which he saw no objection.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 28 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday, at Two of the clock.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT, 1869, AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to amend "The Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1869," ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. "WILLIAM HENRY SMITH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 250.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Report—Royal Irish Constabulary* (182).
Report—Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Fen Chapels) * (204).
Third Reading—Pollution of Rivers* (203); Medical Acts Amendment (College of Surgeons) * (165); Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Abordare, &c.) * (123), and passed.

GERMANT AND BELGIUM—INTERNATIONAL LAW.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIOHS.
  LORD PENZANCE, who had given Notice to call attention to the following passage in the despatch of the German Minister to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the King of the Belgians, dated the 3rd of February 1875:—
  "They are incontestable principles of International Law that a State ought not to permit its subjects to disturb the internal peace of another State, and is bound to take care by its laws that it is in a position to fulfil this international obligation:"
  and to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any application has been made to Her Majesty's Government to acquiesce in any such principle as one of International Law; and, if so, with what result? said, that the Question of which he had given Notice with reference to International Law was one which he was persuaded their Lordships would think was well worthy of consideration. As the Question arose upon a Correspondence between two foreign Governments, he wished most definitely to disclaim any desire to enter into the cause which had given rise to that Correspondence. The Correspondence had taken place between the Governments of Germany and Belgium, and it seemed that in it the Ger-

  1317
  man Government complained that a plan or plot had been formed in Belgium for the assassination of Prince Bismarck. What he had to say would have no reference to this. But in the Correspondence other topics had been dealt with—such as that in Belgium certain opinions had been published in reference to the Roman Catholic Church which the Government of Germany thought very injurious to the interests of their country, and likely to disturb their internal peace; and in respect to these publications, Germany desired certain steps to be taken. Whether the complaint was well founded, and what notice should have been taken of it by the Belgian Government, were questions upon which he had no desire to say anything. But in the course of the Correspondence he found that the German Minister, in support of his complaint against Belgium, made a statement as to a general rule of International Law which might be applicable under the varying circumstances of different times to all civilized nations. This principle was asserted to be one that was beyond all question; and it was because he (Lord Penzance) believed the principle to be novel, erroneous, mischievous, and likely to become dangerous, that he ventured to call their Lordships' attention to it. It might be said that it hardly devolved upon their Lordships' House, and still less upon any individual in it, to raise the question; but this Correspondence had been handed by the German Government to Her Majesty's Government, and therefore it was that he founded a Question upon it. The Correspondence had been in an official way communicated to Her Majesty's Government, and Her Majesty had been most graciously pleased to order it to be laid upon the Table of the House; and therefore the attention of their Lordships had been invited in the most legitimate way to it. The German Minister in his despatch said—
  "They are incontestable principles of International Law that a State ought not to permit its subjects to disturb the internal peace of another State, and is bound to take care by its laws that it is in a position to fulfil this international obligation."
  From the generosity of this language it might be supposed that the disturbance of internal peace alluded to was a phy-
  1318
  sical disturbance; but the Correspondence which had taken place showed that this was not so, for what was complained of was that there had been publications in Belgium which the Belgian Government did not restrain, which more or less expressed sympathy with clergymen who had been imprisoned in Germany in consequence of resistance to the law of the State. The proposition laid down, therefore, as it was explained by the other parts of the Correspondence, was shortly this, that "a State ought not to permit its subjects to disturb the internal peace of another State by publications having that tendency." This was surely a proposition of extreme importance, which required mature consideration, and which ought not to be adopted, if adopted at all, without considerable hesitation. He took leave to say that no State had the right to ask of another State that it should restrain a publication within its own territory because that publication might with respect to another Government produce a certain amount of disturbance. What was published in one country could not disturb the subjects of another unless what was so published found its way into that other country; and the remedy was in the hands of that other Government by preventing the publication from finding its way into its own territory. Each State was supposed to have the command of its own territory, and of all the approaches to its own territory; and every State was taken to have the means of keeping out of its own territory publications which it objected to. In former times there was no such public opinion in Europe as existed at present, because national intercommunication had not been established as it now existed; but the effect of adopting the proposition he was inviting the House to consider would be to destroy the public opinion which had of late years grown up in Europe and from which great advantages had arisen. But it was necessary to observe the way in which the proposition was put. It was not put as an appeal to friendly offices—it was not put even as a demand to set in motion such laws as might exist in the State when such publication was made; but the matter was elevated into an absolute duty from which there was no escape, whatever the occasion or circumstances might be, to restrain the pub-

  1319
  lication complained of. There was much involved in that duty. The adoption of such a new rule would involve the necessity of a nation being bound not only to put in force such laws as it had, but to make new laws, if need be, adequate for the purpose. Nay, it would even involve the necessity, if verdicts could not be obtained, of abandoning trial by jury. Where, he asked—in the writings of what author—was to be found such a principle as this, as binding between civilized States? The only International Law hitherto promulgated and acted upon was sufficient for all reasonable demands, and it was this—If a foreign Power conceived that the municipal law had been broken to its detriment by a subject of any other State it would bring the circumstances before the Government under whose laws the offender lived, and demand his punishment if it could prove the offence; and in such case it was for that Government to exercise a fair discretion in becoming prosecutors under that law. This surely was sufficient to meet all ordinary cases. In times past it had happened, and it might happen again, that questions of this kind had been tried by juries, and sometimes it was not easy to get convictions; but if the proposition laid down by the German Minister were made an international obligation the whole system would have to be altered, for there were many cases that came within it for which English juries would not convict. In fact it would be necessary if the principle laid down was to be acted upon to enact a law which would be sufficiently strong for the purpose. If it was really a duty, really an international obligation, it would be no excuse for failing to fulfil it to say that your laws were not strong enough to do so. And then would be heard again a word which had been rife of late times—the word "compensation." The whole of these results, which would flow from an adoption of the principle laid down were, to say the least of them, novel, and he had been unable to find any precedent in the history of civilized nations to justify the adoption of such a proposal. It was for a nation to put in force its laws in the case of its own subjects, and what more should a foreign Power ask when it was sought to rectify a wrong? Vattel, the distinguished writer on the "Law of Nations," pointed out
  1320
  the difference between perfect and imperfect rights:—all that foreign Governments had a right to ask was that you should put in force the existing law that prevailed in your own country. The First Napoleon addressed remonstrances to this country with reference to publications here, and Lord Hawkesbury, in a despatch of August 28, 1802, stated that—
  "His Majesty neither can nor will, in consequence of any representation or measure from a foreign Power make any concession which may, in the smallest degree, be dangerous to the liberty of the Press, as secured by the constitution of this country; but, he continued, there exist judicatures wholly independent of the Executive, capable of taking cognizance of such publications as the law deems criminal, and they may investigate and punish not only libels against the magistracy and government of this kingdom, but those reflecting on the individuals in whose hands the administration of foreign Governments is placed. The British Government is perfectly willing to afford to the French Government all the means of punishing the authors of any writings which they may deem defamatory, which they themselves possess; but they can never consent to new model their laws or to change their constitution to gratify the wishes of any foreign Power. 'If,' it added, 'the French Government were dissatisfied with our laws on the subject of libels, they may punish the vendors or distributors of such writing as they deem defamatory in their own country, or increase by additional penal regulations the risk of their circulation within their own bounds.'"
  In that Despatch the matter was placed on a true and sound footing, and he trusted that no Government in this country would be induced to depart from it. He dreaded to think of the effect of such a demand if made on this country. What prospect would there be of passing a proposed change in the law regulating the freedom of the Press made at the instance of a foreign State? It would be impossible. In this country free comment was most beneficial, and no proposition to control or restrain it would for a moment be entertained. He earnestly desired that, if the time should come when any foreign Power should ask us to make more stringent laws as to publication in this country, on the ground that it interfered with their internal peace, we should be free and unfettered to meet that demand, and that was the reason why he hoped that no sanction, either direct or indirect, and no countenance by a silence that might be adversely construed, should be given to this novel

  1321
  and dangerous doctrine. He begged to ask the Secretary of State for Poreign Affairs, Whether any application has been made to Her Majesty's Government to acquiesce in any such principle as one of International Law; and, if so, with what result?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I am sure your Lordships all feel the importance of the subject which the noble and learned Lord (Lord Penzance) has made the subject of discussion, and that it is well worthy of the attention of the House. The Question which the noble and learned Lord has addressed to me is one which I have no difficulty in answering. No application has been made to Her Majesty's Government to acquiesce in the particular principle of International Law contained in the passage which he has quoted. The Correspondence in which it occurs, relating mainly to the affair of Duchesne, was communicated to the British Government for information only. It was communicated in the first instance in a confidential manner, and at no stage of the discussion was any appeal addressed to us or any request made for our interference. I might say more—I believe that to the Belgian Government, at least, an offer of mediation would not have been acceptable; because that Government, taking from the first a very sensible and judicious view of the situation, desired nothing less than the raising of a small and easily-settled question into one of European importance. If we had thought that our good offices were necessary or desirable for the maintenance of our good relations, they would have been freely offered: but we did not think so; and the result has justified what we did—or rather what we did not do—for the matter, so far as the Duchesne question is concerned, is disposed of, as I believe without leaving any unfriendly feeling on either side. As to the other question, I should be reluctant to raise a general or abstract controversy upon a passage such as that which the noble and learned Lord has quoted. In practical life, we often find that people arguing a case, whether in diplomacy, or in Parliament, or in Courts of Law, lay a foundation much wider and more extensive than is necessary to support the superstructure which they intend to raise. We have most of us heard sound and defensible conclusions supported by ar-
  1322
  guments of very questionable validity; and if I had to express an opinion on this demand I should have looked to the substantial justice or injustice of the thing demanded, to the merits of the particular case which was being discussed, rather than to the precise words or arguments which happened to be used in discussing it. And I should the more readily have taken that course because the words quoted, as I read them, are so vague and general that they do not admit of judicial interpretation. "A State ought not to permit its subjects to disturb the internal peace of another State." Very well; but what is disturbing the internal peace of another State? If the proposition is put in this way—"All Acts committed by the subjects of one State which have a tendency, however indirect and remote, to cause disturbance in another State, ought to be forbidden"—then it amounts to a claim so monstrous and unreasonable that one may safely affirm that it never has been put forward by European diplomacy, and that it probably never will be. To take an example:—The abolition of slavery in one country may have a strong tendency to disturb the internal peace of a slave-owning community in an adjoining country. A political revolution, in whatever sense it is made, tends, by the sympathy it creates, or by the alarm which it excites, to produce important changes beyond the frontier of the State in which it occurs. But no one has ever said that in altering its own institutions a State was bound to take into account the effect which such change might have on its neighbours. That interpretation of the words must therefore be put aside as extravagant. But if we put an opposite construction upon them—a construction which they will equally well bear—and read them in this way—"There are some acts, tending to disturb the internal peace of another State, which by International Law a State is bound on that ground to forbid"—if, I say, the claim is carried no further than that, it is a claim which, within certain limits, more or less defined, I conceive that every civilized Government has in practice admitted. The difficulty, as I conceive, is where to draw the line; and it is a difficulty which I am afraid we shall not easily solve. We speak of International Law, and it is a convenient

  1323
  phrase; but in the strict sense of the word, law presupposes the existence of a Legislature to make it, a Judicial Authority to declare and to define it, and an Executive to enforce the decisions of the tribunals. Now, in the case of that assemblage of international usages which we call International Law all these three conditions are wanting; and, as a natural consequence, it follows that though certain leading principles are universally admitted, yet in matters of detail you have nothing like the precision and accuracy which distinguish—or, at least, ought to distinguish—law, as framed by a national Legislature and interpreted by a national tribunal. These are my two reasons for not undertaking to criticize the language of the German Government which has been read. In the first place, I have never been required, for any practical object, to do so; in the next place, I cannot take on myself to say exactly what they mean. I agree in much that has been said; but it is not at all clear to me that the German Government would put the construction on its words which has been put upon them. If I rightly understand the doctrine laid down by the noble and learned Lord, there is one part of it to which I should hesitate before giving an unqualified assent. The noble and learned Lord seemed to lay it down as an abstract and general proposition—and I did not understand him to admit exceptions to it—that each State is necessarily supreme in the making of its own municipal law, and that no other State has a right to call upon it to make alterations in that law. That doctrine, no doubt, represents the general rule; but, if laid down unconditionally, it seems to me open to criticism, because it shuts you up to the conclusion that every State must be the sole judge for itself what its international duties are. Now, that is equivalent to saying that there are, or soon will be, as many different systems of International Law as there are independent States; and that, again, is very much like saying that there is no such thing as International Law at all. It seems to me—speaking with great deference—that if a State lies under recognized international obligations towards another State, it is no answer to a charge of non-fulfilment of those duties that they were not fulfilled because mu-
  1324
  nicipal law did not allow of their fulfilment. The State aggrieved might surely reply to that plea—"What is that to us? If your law is defective, you can mend it; but the badness of your municipal legislation does not lessen our rights or our claims as against you." Once admit that no nation can be called upon to amend its internal laws, however defective, by any other nation, and you put an end to all international compacts. For, on that hypothesis, a State, wishing to free itself from an inconvenient obligation to another State, has nothing to do except to alter its own laws in such a manner as to make the fulfilment of that obligation impossible; and then, according to the theory, the obligation itself ceases. Surely, that is very like saying that no State is ever to be bound to anything:—and then, what are treaties worth? As regards the practical conclusions which the noble and learned Lord draws, I do not know that there is much difference between us. That one foreign Government should call on another to silence its Press, or its public speakers, is an act which has always excited—and, I hope, always will excite—a general feeling of sympathy and of indignation in this country. But, as I conceive, that feeling arises not so much from attachment to any particular principle of International Law, as from a conviction that the act in question is arbitrary, is oppressive, and is injurious to civilization. We believe free speech, and free writing, to be essential elements of civilization, and we therefore regret and resent anything tending to their suppression. We hold, moreover, that any State can protect itself, if it pleases to do so, against foreign journalism or foreign writings—it can exclude them more or less completely from its own territory, and any interference beyond its frontier is therefore unnecessary and vexatious, as well as unjust. We believe, further, that comments by foreigners on the conduct of contemporary statesmen have great utility and value, and that a Government acts unwisely which deprives itself of that source of information. But, in saying this, I must ask your Lordships to remember that we are discussing a contingency which has not occurred, and which, very probably, may not occur. We have no reason to suppose that any attempt will be made to silence by menace the Bel-

  1325
  gian Parliament or Press. That being so, and the question in the present state of affairs being purely speculative, I think your Lordships will excuse me if I do not say more on the present occasion.
  House adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.